Search Box

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Looking up old flames

Google-searching exes seems to be a fairly universal activity. With the internet, it's a lot easier to keep tabs on people.

Actually contacting them is less common, but certainly not unheard of. Whenever the subject is broached, it's almost invariably presented as a bad idea. This has actually been the theme of a few movies, where it always seems to backfire in one way or another.

But curiosity is hard to extinguish. What is your ex doing these days? How has he or she aged? What is the ex's love life like? Facebook can answer some of these questions, but theres no substitute for actual contact.

Getting in touch often has to do with wanting to show off. If you're doing better than the last time you saw each other, you want the ex to know that. The desire to boast can never be overestimated.

And there's always the hope that the flame might be rekindled. Which makes the potential for awkwardness immense, given that that hope is likely to be one-sided.

Part of it also has to do with wanting to revisit one's own youth. I've always found that whenever I see people from way back when, I feel as if I'm the age I was when I last saw them. If I see someone I haven't seen since I was 25, in some weird way I feel 25 again, psychologically if not physically. The natural tendency is to pick up right where you left off -- for better or worse.

In a way seeing old friends is the closest we can come to time travel.

Seeing and thinking a little more clearly

From about age 55 to 61, I was congratulating myself on not needing reading glasses. Other people my age used them, but I didn't seem to need them. 

Last year, at 61, I finally gave in and got some. Now that I have them, reading is much, much easier. 

I should have gotten them years ago, back when I was congratulating myself for not needing them while squinting at the crossword every morning.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Why CEOs support Clinton

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Friday, No Fortune 100 CEOs Back Republican Donald Trump. It turns out that 11 of those 100 have donated to Hillary Clinton. An excerpt:

Altogether, the 11 CEOs have donated more than $30,000 to Mrs. Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records....

Individuals are capped at donating $5,400 to a candidate, so the financial loss for Mr. Trump’s campaign is small. But gathering such support is traditionally a goal for candidates, because it sends a signal to voters about their competence, particularly on economic issues.

After all, if anyone understands the economy and what it would take to get the economy moving again, it would be these CEOs, right?

The NY Times jumped on board thee days later with an article titled, Trump's a Businessman. Where's His Business Backing?

That article provided the expected anti-Trump spin.

But yesterday, Real Money ran an article, Cramer: We Could Be Setting up for Some Presidential Bargains, which offered a far more insightful and honest appraisal of why these execs donate. The salient paragraph, buried deep in the article:

Now let's circle back to the 11 CEOs who have given to the Hillary camp and discuss the difference between Clinton and President Obama. Clinton, by virtue of her many years in politics, has built up a huge number of friends, both liberal and pragmatic, who know she will take their calls. Most of the CEOs I have talked to during the last eight years have been deeply frustrated because President Obama either didn't take their calls or they believe he didn't take them seriously. I know plenty of Republican and Democrat CEOs who tell me that Clinton's the opposite. In the crazy year since this campaign really took off, I have only talked to one CEO of all the scores I talk to who is for Trump and has given him money. Other than that one CEO, I haven't talked to anyone who thinks Trump would listen to him and act on his or her advice.

When a chief exec says that Trump won't "listen to him and act on his or her advice," what that means is that Trump won't twist policy to suit the interests of the CEO's company because of his campaign donation.

Hillary, on the other hand, made it perfectly clear while Secretary of State that she would make herself available and amenable to anyone who gave a large enough donation to the Clinton Foundation.

CEOs don't get to be CEOs by being starry-eyed idealists. They attain their positions by being extremely self-interested, conniving sharks. And by being realists.

They recognize that Clinton is for sale, and Trump is not.

Hence the contributions.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Tonight's debate

A friend recently wrote to say that his main interest in the upcoming debates was ghoulish: to see if Hillary would manage to make it through them. He concluded that she would be pumped full of drugs.

Hillary probably will be on something.

But the most interesting thing is going to be how they pick at each other's weaknesses.

You can be sure Hillary's camp has been brainstorming on things she can say to get Trump to blow his stack. Trump's Achilles heel does seem to be that if insulted, he will almost always take the bait. Trump has claimed that he hasn't practiced much for the debate; he seems to consider it beneath him, and doesn't want to come across rehearsed.

So what does Hillary have planned? What is Trump sensitive about? Will she talk about his businesses which have gone bankrupt? ("Donald, for someone who claims to be a successful businessman, you seem to have had an awful lot of businesses which have gone bankrupt. The Taj Mahal, Trump Air....")

Will she mention Trump University, possibly in a scathing aside? ("That sounds like something they'd teach at Trump University.")

Will she talk about his foundation? ("At least at the Clinton Foundation we never spent $6000 on an oil portrait of either Bill or me.")

Will she question his children's role in his campaign?

Will she mention that he had originally said he would spend a billion of his own money on his campaign but has only spent a small fraction of that? ("It makes people wonder if you're as rich as you claim.")

Will she make a remark about his appearance? ("I'm overweight and know it, and I never criticize anyone else's looks. Which is why I don't understand why someone as fat as you would feel as free as you do to criticize other people's appearance.") By mentioning her own weight, she would defuse his most stinging retort. And although it makes her look bad, it's almost sure to bring a response that would make him look even worse.

Will she refer, even obliquely, to his record with women? ("Judging a man like Mr. Putin is not as easy as judging the Miss Universe contest.")

Will Hillary reference Trump's lack of knowledge when it comes to foreign leaders and international politics? ("How can the Donald say he has a plan for resolving our difficulties in the Mideast when he doesn't even know the names of half the leaders over there?")

But Trump should have a counterpunch ready for this, as for many of these barbs. ("Where has all of your knowledge gotten us, Hillary? The Middle East is a far more dangerous place than when you started as Secretary of State. In fact, the entire world is. And it's because the Obama/Clinton team has been so weak.")

If she references his record with women, he can play his ace in the hole: Bill. ("But Hillary, you were in charge of the war room dealing with Bill's bimbo eruptions, as I think you called them. When Monica came forward, you said it was a vast right-wing conspiracy, and you called Monica a narcissistic loony tune. That doesn't speak very well of your record on feminism.")

Or, "Hillary, at least I made my money legitimately, not by taking back door bribes from countries which don't give women full rights and which prosecute gays."

Trump could point out that she would be nothing if not her husband. ("I'm a little surprised to hear you questioningly my business record given that you rode into politics on Bill's coattails.")

If she questions any of his views, Trump can reply, "Hillary, you flip flop more than those things people wear on their feet. You voted for the Iraq war, now you say you were against it. You were for the Trans Pacific Partnership, now you're against it. You were strongly against gay marriage, now you support it and call yourself a champion of LGBT rights. How can anyone be sure that you're not going to change your current positions depending on which way the wind blows?"

Or, "I'm just curious Hillary, when they talk about your platform, are they referring to your misguided attempts to side with criminals rather than cops, your burning desire to bring more potential terrorists into this country, or that stool you're standing on?" -- The Clinton camp has evidently requested a stool for her to stand on so that she looks taller.)

When she questions any of his views, he can reply, "I know it's complicated Hillary, but don't worry, I'll send you an email on it. Oh, wait a sec; maybe I shouldn't."

Of course, Trump doesn't want to appear to be too much of a bully, since he is dealing with a sick old woman. And no matter what insults he throws Hillary's way, the media will describe them as nasty and small-minded and a reminder that he doesn't have the temperament to be President. While simultaneously describing Hillary's insults to Trump as zingers that really hit the mark, or something to that effect.

So, maybe Trump should rein himself in. As Pat Buchanan recently said, all Trump really has to do to win the debate is to not appear the monster that the media has portrayed him as.

Refraining from hurling any insults be a tall order, though, especially if Hillary tries to provoke him.

Get your popcorn ready.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Still more on Hillary: her laugh

Hillary Clinton -- that great feminist -- once, as a young lawyer, got a child rapist off the hook. Here is a clip of her boasting about how she did so. Note her laughter when she talks about how her client passed a polygraph, and how that forever destroyed her faith in polygraphs. (Meaning, she knew her client was guilty.)

And here is an article in the Daily Mail about the woman who was raped -- at age 12 -- by the 41-year-old drifter whom Hillary defended. Hillary evidently smeared the 12-year-old by questioning her credibility, and by suggesting that she sought out older men. 

Some have questioned how could Hillary have defended a child rapist, as if that in itself is an unethical act. To be fair, a lawyer's job is to provide the best representation possible to whomever their client may happen to be. Hillary was in private practice at the time, so theoretically could have turned down this case. But young lawyers in a large firm are expected to work on whichever case is assigned to them, at least if they want to keep their jobs.

The code of ethics that Hillary did violate was the legal one, by talking about the case afterward and indicating her client's guilt (by saying his having passed the polygraph forever destroyed her faith in them). There's a reason you don't hear criminal defense lawyers saying afterward that they knew their client was guilty, but they got them off anyway. It violates the client confidentiality rules.

Did you ever hear Johnny Cochrane quoted as saying, after the OJ trial, "Yeah, I knew the Juice had killed Nicole, but did you see the snow job I pulled at that trial? That stupid bitch Marcia Clark didn't know what hit her. I got the brother off and everybody knew he was guilty" -- and then laughing about it? No, you didn't, because, as sleazy as Cochrane was, at least he observed the legal code of ethics, unlike the even sleazier Hillary.

What was even more telling than Hillary's indiscretion -- from a psychological point of view -- is the way she laughed about the case. What exactly was funny about having gotten that rapist off?

Here is a clip of Hillary boasting and laughing about having killed Muammar Gaddafi. She says, "We came, we saw, he died," and then laughs.

Now, Gaddafi was unquestionably a horrible guy. He was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, among other things, and probably deserved to die. But Hillary's joke, a slight twist on the "Veni, vidi, vici" boast, was, truth be told, not all that funny.

So what was all the laughing about?

I wrote back in 2010 about how one of the surest signs of narcissism is to laugh at one's own jokes. this tends to go beyond an innocent "I crack myself up" laughter at a funny joke one is repeating. It's more, "Laugh with me in exultation about the way I pulled off this great coup!" Narcissistic laughs tend to have an aggressive, staccato quality to them. Just like Hillary's.

But as I outlined four days ago, Hillary is a sociopath, a far scarier diagnosis than mere garden variety narcissism. And what's really telling about Hillary's laughter is that only a sociopath finds other's misfortunes funny

Schadenfreude is universal: we all feel a certain satisfaction in seeing someone we hate get hurt, even if we don't admit it. We may even enjoy a quiet inner smile. But actually finding it laugh out loud funny is altogether different. Only a sociopath would laugh when he sees someone he doesn't even know crash his bicycle into a wall, or take a bad fall. Stitches have him in stitches, so to speak. It's a distinct sociopathic tell.

Someone ought to ask Hillary what she found so funny about those incidents. 

Friday, September 23, 2016

A little more on Hillary

After the sociopath alert on Hillary from three days ago, commenter "Rifleman" linked the following anecdote about Hillary from Staff Sgt. Eric Bonner, but added that he couldn't confirm its authenticity:

I'm not Voting for Clinton.

It has nothing to do with her views. It really doesn't even matter about all the laws she broke.

It's because She actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence. But first, some background.

Being a K9 handler in the Military I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors. Mostly Generals, DOD Officials, and Secretaries of Defense. I was lucky enough to pull two awesome details. George W Bush, and Obama.

GW looked at me, said "Man, who'd you piss off" high fived me, and continued on. I was climbing down from a catwalk I stood on for 4 hours with nothing but Dust and a radio to keep me company. The radio died early on. It was pretty sweet.

Obama, as he was walking out to his plane in Turkey, said "What the hell kind of dog is that?!" In reference to Suli.

One of my Last details was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State. She was in Turkey for whatever reason. I helped with sweeps of her DV Quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me? "Get that Fucking dog away from me." Then she turns to her Security Detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters. For the next 20 minutes while I sit there waiting to be released she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she's done. The Detail lead walks over apologizes and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in trouble. His words "Happens every day, Brother"

Hillary doesn't care about anyone but Hillary.

Commenter "Puzzled" then found this Snopes analysis of the incident, which confirmed that Staff Sgt. Bonner was a K-9 handler, and he was in Turkey at the time Hillary visited Ankara. 

Puzzled then added:

Bear in mind that Snopes is not impartial. It's a very left-wing site. It used to be good but it's become infected by leftism over the years and the majority of its debunking is highly partisan left-wing propaganda. They tried to debunk Bonners story but they couldn't. Snopes confirmed every particular of Bonners story. He really is or was a military K-9 Handler. he really was in turkey. Why on Earth would he lie about this? What possible benefit could he get from lying about this?

In other words, it's true. 

Thank you to Rifleman and Puzzled for providing this colorful example of Hillary being herself.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

"Punchable faces"

I was going to put up a post about how MSNBC host Chris Hayes --

-- has one of the most punchable faces ever. He's soft, epicene, and exudes conceit. But a quick Google search of "Chris Hayes punchable face" yielded a lot of results, so this observation is obvious on its face, so to speak.

The search also led me to the section on "Punchable faces." It's interesting to scroll through their list of such faces and see the common threads that run through them. A lot of the people shown are overweight, or at least soft-looking. And they all look extremely pleased with themselves.

It seems that at least part of what sparks the instinctive wanting-to-mash-their-noses-in reaction is the thought, "That person has no reason to look so proud!"

Another common thread that runs through the site is that a high proportion of the punchable faces -- though not all -- belong to Lefties. This makes sense: social justice warriors tend to be narcissists. Male SJW's also tend to have lower levels of testosterone, at least among whites. So they generally have a much softer look. And feminists tend toward obesity (which often has something to do with how they arrive by their resentment of men).

I've written previously about how Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush have instantly dislikable faces, so the political correlation is not perfect. But the correlation is real, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that that says something about Lefties.

Scroll through that site, you'll see what I mean.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Sociopath alert: Hillary Clinton

For a long time, I thought Hillary Clinton a normal person who had been corrupted by her proximity to her sociopathic husband and by having been given so much power. (Power does have a corrupting influence.)

She didn't seem to have a full complement of sociopathic traits. She lacks the glib salesman's charm that characterizes so many sociopaths. When Barack Obama characterized her in 2008 as being "likable enough," that was in fact being generous. Her strident, grating personality does not cast a spell.

It also seemed less likely that Hillary was a sociopath simply because she was married to one. Sociopaths are rarely drawn to each other as spouses: they usually prefer someone they can dominate and manipulate, not an "equal." But, that marriage appears more and more to be a rare case of two partners in crime.

And ever since Hillary ran for Senator in 2000, she has more or less escaped Bill's shadow. This has put her own personal qualities in high relief. And it's hard to escape the conclusion that she, too, is a sociopath.

Dishonesty is one of the main hallmarks of sociopathy.

Hillary has lied, in some way, about practically every aspect of her life that has come to public notice. The bribe she got via the cattle futures trading (which, in all fairness was for her husband, and merely funneled through her) was something she claimed she achieved through having studied the Wall Street Journal. (If she was so good at it, why would this famously money hungry woman suddenly quit trading?) She lied about Travelgate when she claimed that the longtime White House employees had committed embezzlement, which was not true. (Hillary wanted to install her friends in the job.)

Hillary has lied about Benghazi (claiming it was a spontaneous reaction to an internet video), her email setup (which she initially claimed was in accordance with all regulations), and countless other episodes. But these are the types of lies which non sociopaths might utter, if their backs were against the wall and their political survival were dependent on it.

What's far more telling, personality-wise, is that Hillary lies even when she doesn't have to. All of the small lies she's told about her own life have had no impact on policy. But while they seem to matter little, they do speak volumes about Hillary.

Hillary has claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to climb Mt. Everest. But she was born in 1947, six years before that event, when Edmund was only an obscure beekeeper in New Zealand.

Hillary has claimed that all four of her grandparents were immigrants. Only one of them was.

Hillary has said that she tried to join the Marines in 1975, but was turned down. While this claim hasn't been definitively debunked, it seems highly, highly unlikely.

Hillary has famously claimed that as Secretary of State, she once landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, and had to run for cover on the tarmac. No such thing occurred. Here is a CBS clip debunking Hillary's account, with footage of her actual arrival.

(These last two lies are a little reminiscent of a male sociopath who claims to have been a Navy SEAL, or to have worked for the CIA, when he hasn't. These types of lies are generally referred to as "stolen valor.")

Hillary has also famously claimed to have been "dead broke" when she left the White House in 2001.

These are all "sport lies," a specialty of sociopaths, who will use any occasion to falsely burnish their resume.

Hillary's lying predates her political career. There are conflicting reports about whether she was technically fired from her job as a young 27-year-old lawyer on the Watergate Committee for her unethical behavior. But her boss at the time, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, has been quite public about his opinion of her dishonesty.

Another characteristic of sociopaths is that when they lie, they do so straightforwardly, with no hint of shame or embarrassment. Can you think of just one occasion when Hillary came across sheepish, rather than brassy?

Some sociopaths will even get angry when rightfully accused, just the way non sociopaths do when wrongfully accused. Think of that famous video of Hillary at the Benghazi hearings, angrily crying out, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

(That is not dissimilar in spirit to the time her husband, wagging his finger angrily at his accuser,  thundered "I did not have sex with that woman!")

Yet another sociopathic hallmark is to think one is fooling others when one is not. A sociopath would lie, then lie again, then deny the previous lies, expecting to be believed every step of the way. Just as Hillary has done with her email scandal.

One revealing sign of character is how one treats people you outrank, whether that's people down the ladder in the organization you work for, or waiters, or delivery people, or taxi drivers. Or, the Arkansas State Troopers assigned to protect you.

Here are a couple of Hillary quotes from people who witnessed her behavior in private:

"F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut." (From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning.")

"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f***ing do as I say, Okay!!!?" (From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

"Where's the miserable c**k sucker?" (From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 - Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.)

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f***ing ass over here and grab those bags!" (From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

The men assigned to protect Hillary once she was in the White House all considered it hardship duty, according to Ronald Kessler, author of First Family Detail. Excerpts from the NY Post article on that book:

 “Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn’t appear to like law enforcement or the military,” former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman recalls. “She wouldn’t go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her."

Former agent Jeff Crane says, “Hillary would cuss at Secret Service drivers for going over bumps.” Another former member of her detail recollects, “Hillary never talked to us . . . Most all members of first families would talk to us and smile. She never did that.”

Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another,” says former FBI agent Coy Copeland. “In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”

Sociopaths always punch down, not up. And spewing bile at people whose job it is to protect and help you is a particularly low form of punching down.

Vindictiveness and spitefulness are two other sociopathic traits.

White House usher Christopher B. Emery unwisely called back Barbara Bush after she phoned him for computer troubleshooting. Emery helped the former first lady twice. Consequently, Kessler reports, Hillary sacked him. The father of four stayed jobless for a year.

Being two-faced is another sociopathic trait: 

As Kessler wrote, “When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously. As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.”

Hillary's corruption is probably best illustrated by the way she made herself available as Secretary of State to donors to the Clinton Foundation, which basically serves as a slush fund for the Clinton lifestyle. The list of corrupt transactions are detailed here, and have been extensively cited elsewhere as well.

We all like money. But once you've known a sociopath or two, you realize that sociopaths worship mammon in a way that normal people do not. They lust after money with an intensity that is hard to imagine. And they will do anything to acquire more of it. Anything. Even selling out their own country, in acts that are essentially treasonous.

Hillary's cupidity extended to whom she would take money from. Hillary lambastes any political opponent who isn't fully onboard with the LGBTQ agenda, or the feminist platform. Yet she accepts money via her foundation from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Morocco, Kuwait, Brunei, and Oman, all of which put severe restrictions on women and persecute gays.

The love of money fits with Hillary's writing off of Bill's used underwear for four dollars (and long johns for twelve dollars) each while First Lady of Arkansas. It fits with taking money for pro-business speeches from Goldman Sachs, the quintessential Wall Street firm, even though she claims to stand against big money. (Did Goldman really think her speeches were worth a quarter  million dollars to hear, or might they have been paying for future access?)

Hypocrisy, another hallmark of sociopathy, is closely related to the inability to feel guilt, or shame. (It's a lot easier to be hypocritical when you're immune to embarrassment.)

In September of 2015, Hillary said, "To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you."

Contrast that to Hillary's behavior with Juanita Broaddrick, right after Bill Clinton had allegedly raped her. According to Broaddrick:

"She came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said: “I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.” I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase — looking less friendly and repeated her statement — “Everything you do for Bill.” I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering."
In 2003, in an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Broaddrick repeated the story, adding: “I could have passed out at that moment. . . . Cold chills went up my spine. That’s the first time I became afraid of that woman.”

Or contrast Hillary's statement to the way she treated Monica Lewinsky and Lewinsky had claimed an affair with Bill: Hillary called her a "narcissistic loony tune."

As Political Insider put it:

During Clinton’s campaigns, Hillary Clinton ran her own “war room” against the so-called “Bimbo Eruptions”… The name given to the endless list of women who were harassed, assaulted, and even raped by Bill Clinton. Hillary’s job was to discredit, smear, and ruin the lives of these women who happened to speak out about her husband’s shameful treatment of women.

Discrediting, smearing, and ruining lives. No one is better at these things than a sociopath. And running a war room to quell "bimbo eruptions" hardly fits with a statement that all rape victims "have the right to be heard" and "the right to be believed."

When a politician flip-flops, it's usually viewed as evidence that he can't be trusted, and that he's the type who will say whatever it takes to be elected. (Telling people what they want to hear also happens to be a characteristic of sociopaths.)

Hillary always has one finger up to the wind. She was against gay marriage, and then she was for it. She fervently supported the Trans Pacific Partnership, and then she was against it. She was against illegal immigration, and now she supports Obama's controversial executive orders on that. She voted for the War on Iraq, but now says it was a mistake. When she was first Secretary of State, she was all for a "reset" with Russia; now she accuses Trump of cozying up too much with Putin.

The list of Hillary's flip-flops is too long for this post; but they are all indicative of someone who will say anything to gain power. And a sociopath's lust for power is similar to their lust for money.

Sociopaths are also all about secretiveness and subterfuge. Hillary certainly showed these traits when she was in charge of that ill-fated attempt to reform the nation's health care system in 1993. And really, that is what her alternate email system was all about in the first place: keeping her Clinton Foundation transactions hidden from public view.

More recently, she's been keeping her health status a secret.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that Hillary has kept her love life a big secret, too. A number of Bill's former lovers have said that he told them that Hillary had been with a number of women. (And why else would Hillary have appointed the 24-year-old Huma as a "personal advisor" back in 2000 if not to hide her real role?) There's certainly no sin in being a lesbian; and maybe Hillary deserves a pass on this one since she's running for President. But, as always, secrecy rules.

Sociopaths are grandiose: remember all that "two for the price of one" talk? Has there ever been another First Lady in history who saw herself as co-President?

Another sociopathic trait is an inability to love.

According to Sally Miller, one of Bill Clinton's former lovers:

“She had several abortions before she had Chelsea and it was only because Bill convinced her that if they were ever going to move up in politics that they had to have a child because that is what the political analysts had said.”

Another hallmark of sociopathy is lack of self-control. Hillary's explosive temper is a perfect example. Former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne wrote a book about what he saw in the White House during the 1990's. The NY Post reviewed it:

Hillary Clinton has a “Jekyll and Hyde” personality that left White House staffers scared stiff of her explosive — and even physical — outbursts, an ex-Secret Service officer claims in a scathing new tell-all.

Gary Byrne, who was posted outside the Oval Office when Bill Clinton was president, portrays Hillary as too “erratic, uncontrollable and occasionally violent” to become leader of the free world....
The book claims she repeatedly screamed obscenities at her husband, Secret Service personnel and White House staffers — all of whom lived in terror of her next tirade.

Secret Service agents had discussions about the possibility that they would have to protect Bill from his wife’s physical attacks, Byrne writes, and the couple had one “violent encounter” the morning of a key presidential address to the nation.

This behavior shows the complete lack of inhibition characteristic of a sociopath.

Another sociopathic trait is a complete unwillingness to accept blame. Hillary has always been willing to point to a "vast right wing conspiracy" or whatever other scapegoat she can think of to explain away her mistakes. Benghazi was the fault of an obscure internet video. More recently she blamed Colin Powell for her email troubles.

And when an interviewer brings up a sensitive question for her, she will often attempt to laugh it off. (This is a remarkably consistent behavior for her, as you'll see if you look at the linked video.)

Try to imagine Hillary, head in hands, shaking her head, red-faced, ruefully thinking, I really screwed up, and I'm so ashamed.

It's an image that's impossible to evoke.

Often the "Early life" section of a Wikipedia bio will give clues as to how a sociopath became that way. Hillary's doesn't. It describes a fairly normal middle class upbringing in Chicago suburb Park Ridge, in an intact family.

The earliest clue to her emerging character came at Wellesley. Much has been made of the fact that Hillary became the first student in Wellesley history to give a commencement speech, in 1969. Hillary's followed that of US Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who was the Commencement Speaker, and her speech was critical of the Senator.

Imagine that scene for a moment. A United States Senator gives a speech to your graduating class, and then, while he is sitting on the podium, you, a graduating senior, give a speech critical of him. That takes an incredible amount of nerve -- or maybe gall -- for a 21-year-old. Maybe Hillary's criticisms were on target; maybe they weren't. But what kind of 21-year-old feels comfortable doing something like that?

With Hillary, there's no one big revelation that reveals her character. It's just the constant drumbeat of lies, hypocrisy, greed, entitlement, anger, secretiveness, and shamelessness that make her what she is.

These are not separate, unrelated qualities. It's the same shamelessness that informed her lying about her emails, her hypocrisy about rape victims deserving to be believed, and her venality with the Clinton Foundation. It's the same dishonesty that informed her behavior on the Watergate committee, her secretiveness about her attempt to overhaul health care, and her excuses for her misbehavior. It's the same contempt for other people that informed her treatment of the Secret Service, her expectation that the public would believe her lies, and her treatment of Senator Brooke. It all fits.

The public has gotten so used to her behavior that the only surprise would be if she ever changed.

But she never will. Once a sociopath, always a sociopath. 

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

"Ryan Lochte's 'Dancing with the Stars' debut marred after attempted assault by angry audience members"

This on air assault is actually the absolute best thing that could happen to Lochte, and the more publicity it gets, the better. It will turn him — in the eyes of the non-swimming world — from a guy who looks like an irresponsible 32-year-old teenager into a figure of sympathy.

The public's reaction will be, how horrible to train so hard for a dance performance and then be attacked while on stage by a bunch of moronic thugs. (They won’t realize that he’s put maybe 1/10,000th of the effort into his dancing that he has into his swimming, but, no matter.)

Hopefully, this will mark the turning point in the public perception of him.

Can't say I'm wild about Lochte's dancing, a clip of which is available on the article linked above. But after such a short period of practice, you can't expect much. His 200 meter individual medley, on the other hand, is a thing of beauty. It's always a privilege to watch that rolling, surging, demonstration of relaxed power. 

Here's a video of his world record in that event, from 2011, which still stands. 

My guess is that the two arrested men -- 

-- are Brazilians. (There is no group of people more insanely nationalistic.) 

Anybody who ever thinks that disrupting a show in that manner will somehow bring support for their cause, is severely misled. 

That said, Lochte should still thank them profusely for their aid in rehabilitating his public image. Nothing like appearing the victim to wash all your sins away.

This is basically Kanye-Taylor, Part II. (And yes, I'm a little embarrassed that I even know about that.)

Monday, September 12, 2016

Leanness and looks

When I first saw Keira Knightley in Bend it Like Beckham, in 2002, I was impressed by her beauty. But when you look closely at her, feature by feature  --

-- it's not as if any one feature is that outstanding. The nose is straight and the eyes are level, but the lips aren't particularly curved, or even full, which is why she's never photographed without lipstick to make them appear larger, and is usually pushing them out in pictures.

Her nose is elegantly narrow, though I have no idea whether that was a result of surgery, and her eyebrows are distinct and well-shaped, though artifice undoubtedly played a role there.

Here's a better picture of her:

Knightley has made the most of what she has simply by staying thin. Because she's thin, her eyes are large, her cheekbones are prominent, and her jawline is well-defined. And that's often what beauty boils down to.

Roughly 75% of people -- both men and women -- would look good if they were the right weight. That means carving themselves down to perfection. The reason Knightley's face is so beautiful is because she's kept her body looking like this:

Now, that body may not suit everyone's taste. But it's that lack of fat that makes Knightley's face so beautiful.

Unfortunately, it's not that easy to lose weight. It seems that we all have a certain number of fat cells, and all we can do is starve them, not lose them. This is why 90% of people who lose a lot of weight end up gaining it all back within a year. Evidently, the number of fat cells is set in childhood and adolescence, and after that it never varies. 

I've scoured the internet to find out exactly how that number is set, and can't find a satisfactory answer. My guess is that it's at least partly a function of early diet. And my guess is that if you keep your kids away from sugary and starchy foods when they're young, they'll benefit for the rest of their lives. (Ironically, fatty foods make you far less fat than starchy foods do. It's all a function of insulin and speed of digestion and the hormones each type of food releases.) 

Lena Dunham got a flurry of publicity this past week with her comments about NY Giant Odell Beckham, who had evidently been seated at her table at last weekend's Met Gala. As per the NY Times:

“I was sitting next to Odell Beckham Jr., and it was so amazing because it was like he looked at me and he determined I was not the shape of a woman by his standards....He was like: ‘That’s a marshmallow. That’s a child. That’s a dog.’ It wasn’t mean. He just seemed confused.”

In Ms. Dunham’s imagination, the grid star’s “vibe” seemed to suggest he was thinking, “Do I want to have sex with it?” (she used an earthier term for “sex,” and yes, she said “it”).

Beckham evidently committed the unpardonable sin of not paying her any attention. (Don't feminists normally protest that men pay them too much attention?)

Dunham later walked her comments back. Which still leaves the question, what did Beckham think? It's doubtful that he confused her with a child or a dog. But Dunham is shaped a bit like a marshmallow, or at least as if she eats her share of them. To the extent that Beckham even noticed her, that was probably his vague impression, even if that wasn't precisely the metaphor he would have used.

Dunham frequently poses for photographs in provocatively revealing outfits. Is she mocking herself? Or is she boldly informing the world, this is what you should be attracted to if you weren't all so taken with your outdated concepts of female beauty? She's probably doing a bit of both.

Now, this may sound sacrilegious to people who read this blog, given Dunham's personality and political stances, but she would in fact be beautiful.....if she were skinny. Not skinny, as in, she'd look better if she lost 10 or 20 pounds. But skinny as in, Keira Knightley skinny.

Look at this picture --

-- and try to imagine what would happen if she were magically to suddenly become thin. Her cheekbones would emerge. Her jawline would become more crisply defined. And her neck would appear more elegant. She'd look like a different person.

Then imagine what would happen if she wore lipstick to make her mouth appear larger, as Knightley does, and had her eyebrows professionally plucked, shaped, and enhanced, the way Knightley has. (Her nose would still be a little wide, but that's nothing a rhinoplasty couldn't fix.)

Look at this picture from a Vanity Fair shoot:

It's telling that they shot her from a slightly high angle, so as to hide her second chin. But other than the mouth-widening lipstick, she's had the Knightley treatment here. And if the fat were sculpted from her face and body, she might look like Keira's sister.

I know it's a stretch, but use your imagination.

A better example of the difference weight makes is to look at what happens to faces when people get fat. Remember what Val Kilmer used to look like?

This is what he looked like more recently:

The cheekbones have disappeared, the eyes have gotten smaller, and the jawline is indistinct. And he's unrecognizable.

Fat loss always seems to be defined by how many pounds you lost, and what size clothing you can now fit into. But it's always more fascinating to see what effect it has on the face.

Now that we've established that there's a skinny beauty trapped inside Lena Dunham, here's a more interesting question: if Dunham's parents had raised her on the paleo diet, and she had far fewer fat cells, and had grown up looking somewhat like Keira Knightley, what effect would that have had on her personality?

And in which direction might it have nudged her politically?


A friend just sent this video of Hillary's collapse last night. It's a little scary.

The way Hillary has her back to the camera reminded me of the scene at the end of Psycho when Norman Bates's mother is revealed.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

"Clinton reportedly has 'medical episode' at 9/11 ceremony"

The article that just appeared in this morning's NY Post:

Hillary Clinton had a “medical episode” that required her to leave a 9/11 commemoration ceremony early, a law enforcement source who witnessed the event told Fox News.

The Democratic presidential nominee appeared to faint on her way into her van and had to be helped by her security, the source said. She was “clearly having some type of medical episode.”

Clinton’s stumbled off the curb, her “knees buckled” and she lost a shoe as she was helped into a van during her “unexpected early departure,” a witness told Fox News.

Clinton was in New York for Sunday’s ceremony commemorating 15 years since the 9/11 terror attacks.

The Clinton campaign would not confirm Clinton’s location to an NBC pool producer. After Clinton left the ceremony, the reporters following her on the campaign trail were prevented from leaving the media area.

Ordinarily, I'd be inclined toward sympathy for anyone with medical problems. The problem here is that Clinton and her campaign staff -- which includes most of the media -- is using the same playbook here that they for everything else. 

Anyone who has recently asked straightforward questions about her health has been treated with the same contempt and dishonesty with which they treat anyone who questions her about the Clinton Foundation, her email scandal, or Benghazi. 

The Clintons use the same tactics, over and over again. 

First they try to hide the problem. Then, when someone inquires about it, they scoff at the question and attempt to laugh it off. Then they accuse whoever asks the question of "playing politics," or being part of a "partisan witch hunt," or participating in a "vast right-wing conspiracy." 

Then, they lie about it some more. And then, after their lies are proven false, they deny having lied in the first place. 

Have they ever considered just telling the truth? 

It would make Hillary a far more sympathetic candidate.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Filial respect Part XI

My son is teaching our dog, a Cairn Terrier, to howl. My son howls and the dog, though not a natural howler, joins in with a sort of high-pitched mewl.

This afternoon, when I howled, the dog just looked at me and barked a couple times. 

My son explained, "PJ howls for me because I sound like a wolf. howl like Allen Ginsberg." 

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

How will sexbots be received?

We know how feminists are reacting to the coming advent of sexbots. But these machines actually raise a host of interesting new issues.

For instance, what if married people have a sexbot on the side? Will that be considered cheating? After all, a sexbot is just a toy. This is really no different, spiritually speaking, than masturbating, even if the "pornography" is more sophisticated. (Though some women do object if their husband looks at porn.)

Will real life partners feel neglected? Will husbands and wives be able to name the sexbot as the corespondent in a divorce? Will they become justifiable grounds for "alienation of affections" charges?

Will some women actually encourage their husbands to buy sexbots so as to lighten their own marital "duties?"

Will men have sexbot-swapping parties? There are certain issues of hygiene to deal with here, but the sexbots will undoubtedly have a self-cleaning function, and, after all, a little variety can be nice. Or will men be possessive of their "girlfriends?"

Will people be able to make alterations to their sexbots? For instance, would you be able to get her implants? Change her hair color? It might be end up being the grown up version of Barbie dolls, where you can change her outfits, and so on. 

And if, say, certain parts of a female sexbot get a little worn out from constant use, will you be able to get them, say, tightened up a little?

Will men be embarrassed to ask for that particular procedure?

Will women be embarrassed to ask if the penis on their sexbot be replaced with a larger one?

Will people be secretive about their sexbots? Will owning one be considered shameful? Will it be the love that dare not speak its name?

Will it become a common insult to suggest that someone owns one? ("I betcha that loser hasn't had a real woman in years!")

Will editorialists pen essays about how, while they themselves don't own one, there should be no shame in owning one, and it shouldn't be considered a taboo? (While, in fact, they actually own one.)

Or will sexbots become the latest status symbol, with men who have the latest, most finely detailed and realistic models parading them around and showing them off to their friends? Will some particularly rich men boast about their "harems?"

How expensive will they be? They're not going to come cheap, especially at first. Over time, their price will undoubtedly go down, as their quality goes up, just as happened with computers. How long will it take for them to become commonplace? 

Will people laugh at the old models? ("I can't believe I used to be able to get it up for that thing!")

Will sexbots come with security devices to insure that other men don't "borrow" them? Will these be modern versions of chastity belts?

Will a traffic in stolen sexbots develop? What sort of discount will you be able to expect on the black market? 

What will the difference in price be between new ones and used ones? Will used sexbot salesmen develop a reputation for being sleazy? ("This little baby here was bought by a 75-year-old with lung cancer who only used her once; she's practically a virgin!")

Will men develop an inability to perform with real women because (a) the idea of being with another actual person becomes intimidating, and (b) because they know their own performance will be pretty pathetic compared to a male sexbot's performance?

If, say, sexbots of one race are more expensive than sexbots of another, will this be viewed as evidence of "racism?" If they're priced the same, but the models of one race sell better, will that be viewed as evidence of same? Will sociologists do studies about this?  

There will undoubtedly be all sorts of physical types, to suit every taste. Will actresses and models become competitive about how the sexbot modeled after them is selling compared to how those modeled after other women are selling? 

What variety of personality will they come with? Will some sexbots be programmed so as to seem unwilling to have sex? After all, some men are more turned on by a shy, reluctant woman than by a sexually demanding one. ("No! Stop it, please! I don't want to do this! It's wrong!")

And some men are turned on by the idea of screwing other men's wives. ("If my husband finds out about this he'll kill me! I've never cheated on him before!") 

Will the sexbots be programmed to be skilled at flattery? Pretty much all men like that. ("Oh my, but you're a handsome fellow!"/"You're not going to fit that huge thing inside me!"/"Just being in the same room as you gets me all wet!"/"Oh my god, I've never cum this way before!")

(It seems unlikely that the "I won't do it until you marry me!" and "You don't spend enough money on me!" and "We don't talk enough!" models will sell that well.)

Will male sexbots be programmed to say "I love you" and "Will you marry me?" and cuddle afterwards?

How will they be advertised? Will there be certain media their ads are banned from? Obviously it would be wrong to buy space in, say, Junior Scholastic, but will ads for sexbots be banned in regular publications, the way ads for cigarettes have been?

Will owners name their sexbots?

Will people become addicted to their sexbots? Will we see Sexbot-aholics Anonymous groups? 

Will we see men -- or women -- who fall in love with their sexbots, and actually form an emotional attachment to them? A recent movie, Her, suggested that a man can fall in love with the disembodied voice of an operating system with artificial intelligence. That seems a little farfetched, but a man should certainly be able to fall in love with an embodied voice -- particularly if the body is appealing, and perpetually "in the mood" for sex.

Will people take their sexbots on vacation with them? Will there be discreet carrying cases for them?

One wonders how the media will treat these cases. If there are any stories about men becoming attached, will they be treated as weird loners with intractable psychological problems and an inability to deal with real live human beings? ("The poor guy actually spelled out in his will that he wanted his beloved Angelina Jolie-bot to be buried with him.")

Will parallel stories about women be reported in a semi-commiserating fashion, and focus on how actual human men are such pathetic saps, and so lousy in bed, that they couldn't possibly keep up with these new Fabio Dolls? ("No wonder she got so attached to him!")

Thinking about all these issues, it's hard not to conclude we're living in the Dark Ages now. Still, one thing won't change in the next 30 years: human nature.

People will react to the advent of these new toys in predictable ways, as described above.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Sexbots and feminists

It's been in the news recently that the scientists are getting ever closer to producing realistic sexbots. As of now, most of the available ones look pretty unappealing:

But the current prediction is that by the 2040's, much more realistic-looking androids which can actually hold a conversation with you will be available.

Feminists are against the idea of sexbots. Here is Dr. (of philosophy, not medicine) Kathleen Richardson arguing them. To hear her speech, click on the "HERE" link to the Toronto conference.

Richardson suggests that the idea of sexbots doesn't come from loving relationships, but rather from prostitution.

(The idea of masturbation doesn't come from loving relationships either; does that mean it should be banned? And the idea of sexbots doesn't "come from prostitution" any more than the idea of one night stands comes from prostitution; all of these things simply arise from our innate sex drive.)

Richardson then says that the existence of child sexbots might encourage those who already harbor vague sexual leanings toward children.

(Sexbots modeled on children would violate all sorts of laws against child pornography in this country, and will never be available here. And all the evidence shows that it's awfully hard to change male sexuality: you can't convince an adult male to "become" a child molester anymore than you can "cure" homosexuality.)

Then Richardson says that prostitution is all about politics, and power. She then suggests helpfully that if someone had tried to lessen racism by inventing black robots for the white race to take out its anger and hatred upon, that that wouldn't solve the problem of racism at all.

(This is an incredibly strained analogy, as well as transparent virtue signaling. Richardson wouldn't have to stretch like this if she had solid arguments. And her premise is wrong to begin with: whites take out their "anger and hatred," i.e., commit violence, against blacks far less than vice versa.)

Richardson mentions multiple times that she is an empathetic person. At one point she says that her empathy extends to men who have a hard time forming relationships.

(But she doesn't suggest anything to help them.)

Richardson concludes by saying she is against the objectification of women, and that people who'd have sex with robots are essentially doing that.

(Sexbots represent the opposite of the objectification of women: the women-ification of objects.)

Then Richardson says that she is also against the objectification of men and boys, which she defines as the narrative that men are sexually driven creatures who can't control their own desires and who commit rape.

(Isn't the basic feminist premise that men are pigs? And whether or not men can control their own desires has nothing to do with whether sexbots ought to be allowed. And if in fact they can't, sexbots will allow an outlet for some of that steam, keeping real women safer.)

Her final conclusion is, we all need each other, and no one should be left behind.

(People only resort to this kind of boilerplate when they have nothing substantive to say.)

Or listen to this paragraph from male feminist Mitchell Blatt:

Sexbots don’t just demean women. Ultimately, they demean men in thinking that men are nothing more than base animals only interested in carnal desires. The idea that robots can replace humans relies on the idea that men aren’t interested in meaningful lives. (It is also a demeaning view of individual men who think of themselves as not being able to attract desirable women.)

(This is a curiously prudish, Victorian view of humanity, one that divorces mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom -- or, as Blatt puts it, "base animals." Plus, no one is suggesting that if you're interested in sex, that that's all you're interested in. I know plenty of men who desire meaningless sex to go along with their meaningful lives. And the fact is, some men aren't able to attract desirable women; that's simply realism. Should those men be forced to forego sex?)

Blatt also points out that a robot that looks like a woman is just a woman for men who don't like women.

(Actually, the robots are for men who really like women, but don't always have a willing partner available. And, the fact is, there do exist women who are either fussy, illogical, gold-digging, hysterical, self-centered, gossipy, or some combination of those things -- even if Mr. Blatt himself has never experienced them.)

Blatt also helpfully points out that machines can't replace people.

(Did anyone suggest that they can, for anything other than temporary sexual needs?)

And Blatt offers that an act of sex with a robot wouldn't be "meaningful."

(Who in the world ever suggested it would be meaningful? Does Blatt ever do anything but set up straw man arguments? And why does sex itself have to have a deep meaning? That tends to be the kind of thing people say when they haven't had much sex.)

But the ultimate argument against feminists who disapprove of sexbots is, what's the ethical difference between those and vibrators? Both are mechanical devices used for sexual pleasure. If a toy can give you pleasure, why ban it?

How exactly would feminists react if men suggested vibrators be outlawed?

Another feminist argument is that these sexbots will set unrealistic beauty standards that young women will feel unable to live up to. But don't dildos -- which never go soft, and come in extra large sizes -- set up unrealistic comparisons for men?

Also, don't feminists believe that what goes on behind closed doors is no one else's business, and that the government shouldn't poke its nose into anyone else's bedroom? Feminists call those who are not on board with the LGBTQ agenda intolerant. Why does that principle not apply here?

Aspies deserve sympathy (but aren't good at getting it)

The original post I wrote on Aspergers Syndrome in 2011 seems to have been linked on some site for people with Aspergers, as an example of how insensitive and insulting some "neurotypicals" can be. The post now has 509 comments (a fair number of which are my replies).

The first couple hundred comments included many telling me what a horrible person I am, but the tone of most of the more recent comments has been more balanced. An anonymous commenter had something perceptive to say this morning:

What is interestingly absent is sympathy for those with autism. Almost every extension of sympathy are to people who live with or know said person with autism, which is actually kind of autistic in a way ironically. If a man with a heart attack were to fall down and block a door to a bathroom, who is suffering more: the person who tripped over the person on the way in or the person with the heart attack himself?

People with autism/aspergers really really suffer from their condition. Heightened levels of neuropathic headaches, bullying in their youth, sensory overload, and many more but people who have posted comments don't see it that way, they see an only autism and not a person WITH AUTISM. Everyone suffers in the end and many would gladly be cured (minus the one's in the USA for some reason, everyone here in Asia with the condition seems to want to be fixed.) We do not see people with autism and people without vs autism the disorder as it should be, rather I keep seeing people putting it as autistic people vs non autistic which shouldn't be that way.

When I read stories about parents of low functioning children, I shake my head when all the supposedly "empathetic and sympathetic" comments always go out only to the parents or relatives, nobody stops to feel bad for the person in the article who self harms and is in constant painful hell. Some even seem to be glad about it saying "serves them right for being autistic!" without realizing the inconsistency in that statement.

Annoying as aspies or autistic are, you have to admit they aren't happy and they may suffer even more from their disease than their parents or peers in some cases. So ironic, despite having fully functioning empathy, many NTs laugh when they hear misfortune happening to autistic people nor do they realize they could have been born with the condition if they were unlucky enough. So they say "they aren't people! They are things! Retards!", well the hatred displayed seems to not look like a negative hatred directed at an inanimate object, it looks very personal and like positive hatred.

But this also cuts the other way too, many higher functioning aspies can choose to realize their differences exist and attempt to fight what they can. They have an obligation to also accommodate others. There is this quote from a video game "Is it better to be born good or to overcome one's evil nature through great effort?" well autism doesn't really equal evil so much as weird nor can a person be cured through willpower alone, but the point rests. It seems to be more of a western thing for aspies to romp around and be proud of it, many other patients I've heard about in Hong Kong for instance would prefer to be normal.

I replied:

Anon --
You make a good point. And I'm obviously as guilty in that regard as anyone.

It does go against human nature, though, to be sympathetic to a set of traits which, individually, don't inspire sympathy. What if someone told you you had to be more sympathetic to someone who was extremely hypocritical? Most people's reaction would be, screw that. Or if you were told you had to be more sympathetic to someone who had no sense of humor and was painfully awkward? Or if you were told you had to show more sympathy to someone who would frequently lose his temper and scream at you? These are traits it's hard to work up sympathy for.

The average person will be inclined to feel sorry for someone who is severely autistic, because there is an obvious organic defect there which is apparent right from the start. Aspergers is more subtle, and is often not apparent at first. So people only gradually become aware of its presence, trait by trait, and by the time the realization of its presence sinks in, they've been annoyed and even infuriated by that person so many times that the window for sympathy has usually been closed.

That said, though, I agree with your larger point: people with organic conditions cannot help themselves, and deserve sympathy for a condition they have no control over.

It occurs to me that one good way for Aspies to gain sympathy would be to own up to their condition early on when they meet new people, which would allow others to be aware of their handicap, and thus make allowances for those Aspies in a way they would not for a neurotypical who exhibited the same traits. 

Sunday, September 4, 2016


A young man recently said to me, "What if a bunch of space aliens with IQ's of 200 came down and kidnapped us and brought us back to their planet to use as slaves, but we couldn't handle their technology, and were more or less useless, and they called us idiots. That wouldn't be our fault."

He has a point.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Kaepernick, Part II: Remember, the quarter black is a quarterback

There's a whole other dynamic at work with Kaepernick which hasn't been discussed elsewhere: as a quarterback, he's a target for every vicious linebacker in professional football.

Football isn't as black-dominated as basketball, but look at this list of the top current linebackers in the NFL: 8 of the top 10, and all 5 honorable mentions, are black.

Now, put yourself in Kaepernick's shoes (his cleats, to be exact). What would you rather have these 275 pound linebackers think as they try to sack you:

(A) This light-skinned mofo thinks he's better than me -- I'm gonna break his fuckin' neck.


(B), Colin's a righteous warrior who's down with the cause. I'm gonna do my job, then help the brother up.

Those linebackers are a lot scarier than the white scribes who criticize Kaepernick's lack of patriotism.

This may not have occurred to you before. Believe me, it's occurred to Colin.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Colin Kaepernick, out-brothering the brothers

About eight months ago, back when Joe Biden was still considering entering the Presidential race, the rumor was that Obama told Biden that his endorsement was contingent upon Biden choosing Deval Patrick, the light-skinned black ex-Governor of Massachusetts, as his running mate. (I have no idea whether this is actually true, it's just a rumor I heard.)

I related this to a friend, who shook his head and replied, "I've known a lot of dark-skinned blacks in my life, and I've liked practically every single one of them. But why is it that when they get half-white, they just become intolerable?"

There's some truth to what he said. Many light-skinned blacks seem to combine the natural posturing and status-seeking of whites with the lack of inhibitions of blacks. So you end up with uninhibited poseurs.

Then, mix into that equation the fact that light-skinned blacks often seem to feel compelled to "prove" their blackness by out-brothering the brothers.

Colin Kaepernick is a case in point.

Often, an American with a white mother and black father (the usual combination) is genetically more than 50% white, since the father usually has some white blood. This appears to be the case with Kaepernick.

And Kaepernick's psychological demons are compounded by the fact that his adoptive family is, apart from himself, entirely white.

Kaepernick's personal background aside, there is a long tradition of light-skinned blacks who have avoided being called Toms by militantly outflanking their darker-skinned brethren.

Remember what Bobby Rush said while running against Barack Obama for Congress in 2000? He said that while he had lived the civil rights movement, Obama had only read about it. Rush saw Obama's vulnerability, exploited it, and then crushed Obama in the election. Do you think the half-white Obama, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, felt obliged to prove his blackness after that?

Obama's entire career since might be viewed as one big attempt to do that. But he's not the only one.

Julian Bond was a longtime civil rights activist. He served six terms as a Democrat in the Georgia State Senate, was chairman of the NAACP for twelve years, and was the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Bond divorced his black wife in 1989 to marry a white woman in 1990, but his resume immunized him from criticism.

Even light-skinned public figures who are not in politics put on a show. Harry Belafonte, who gained fame as a calypso singer, is a longtime civil rights activist; his involvement dates from the 1950's and the 1960's, when "civil rights" was a just cause that stood for almost the opposite of what it now does. But he has also been a longtime supporter of Cuba and the Soviet Union, and has remained far Left to this day.

Alicia Keys has always been outspoken politically. She is the co-founder of Keep a Child Alive, an organization which provides medicine to people with HIV and AIDS in Africa. And she has donated to Frum Tha Ground Up, which give scholarships to needy children.

She has also been quoted as saying:

‘Gangsta rap’ was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other.
The gold AK-47 pendant around her neck “symbolize[s] strength, power and killing ’em dead.”
The bicoastal feud between slain rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. was fueled “by the government and the media, to stop another great black leader from existing.”
If black leaders such as the late Black Panther Huey Newton (a cop killer) “had the outlets our musicians have today, it’d be global. I have to figure out a way to do it myself.”

Here's Alicia: 

Beyonce is a vocal Democrat, and at a recent halftime show at the Super Bowl incorporated a tribute to blacks who've been killed by police:

Louis Farrakhan is the head of the Nation of Islam, a black nationalist group advocating separatism:

Jeremiah Wright is the fire-breathing former pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago:

Some of these light-skinned blacks may genuinely dislike whites. They have all undoubtedly felt the subtle, patronizing kind of racism that white liberals specialize in, and some may have experienced overt discrimination as well. Belafonte, Farrakhan, and Wright were all born during the Jim Crow era, thus witnessed real discrimination.

But, as rich as most of these people are, at some level they must be secretly grateful for the protection police provide.

Wright, for instance, now lives in a 10,400 square foot house in a gated community on a golf course in a white suburb. Think he wants a riot in his hometown? Or hordes of inner city blacks overrunning his property?

Do you think Colin Kaepernick wants to share his NFL riches with a mugger or home invader?

Nonetheless, at a certain level, these light-skinned blacks feel obliged to prove they're every bit as black as anyone else. They may not even be fully conscious that this is what their motivation is; but the result is, they often end up more strident.

The fact is, dark-skinned blacks are usually accepting of lighter-skinned blacks; historically, the prejudice has usually run the other way. (Spike Lee devoted his second feature film, School Daze, to precisely that subject.) But when the darker-hued do sense snobbery, they're resentful, and nobody wants to be the target of that resentment.

All of this is not to say that the darker-skinned themselves -- like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Danny Glover -- don't become militant. But if they do, it's either to make money and gain personal power (like the first two), or because they are convinced of the movement's righteousness (like Glover).

It's not because they have to prove their blackness.

Whites have a tendency to look at blacks and see just one color. But there's a whole range of skin tones there, and with them come a range of psychological dynamics.

Blacks generally don't worry about what whites think about them (unless they stand to lose money as a result). If you're black, you can say the most racist things, and whites will for the most part just pretend they didn't hear it. Blacks worry much more that others in their community will see them as traitors.

Witness the treatment accorded Clarence Thomas, and Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell. (It takes an awfully strong person to withstand that.)

So, don't be too hard on Colin Kaepernick. Bear in mind, Kaepernick was brought up in a white family in Turlock, California, which is 1.7% black. Most of his exposure to blacks growing up undoubtedly came from reading about them committing crimes and rioting and so on. So at a certain level, he's probably almost as scared of blacks as most whites are.

Listen to Kaepernick for a minute or so in this interview, and note his vaguely black accent. When did he pick that up? He certainly didn't grow up speaking that way. It's an affectation, every bit as phony as Obama's black accent.

Kaepernick is, for all practical purposes, a wigger, the only difference being that he actually is roughly a quarter black.

His sitting down during the national anthem is not a well-considered if misguided moral stance arrived after a painstaking study of all the police shootings of the past few years. It's more just a desperate attempt to try to fit into a community in which he never really belonged, and with whom he's not entirely comfortable. Unfortunately for Kaepernick, his psychological issues are playing out on a national stage, on a touchy issue, at a particularly fraught time in the national psyche.

The next time you see a Kaepernick-type in action, understand that what you're seeing is not necessarily hatred of whites; a lot of it may just be posturing. Light-skinned blacks don't want other blacks to think that they think they're better just because they're lighter. And they really don't want other blacks to realize that they're actually afraid of them. (Even if, deep down, that's how they feel.)