Prison pen pals II

Still on my alphabetically-ordered quest to find an appropriate correspondent at prisonpenpals.com. A few of the more interesting ads:

Alesha Carter (burglary):

Hi, my name is Alesha & I'm 28 years young. I'm a delightful, former exotic dancer whose affectionate as a kitten :) I've lived on the wild side, however, I'm disease & drug free. I have a great sense of humor & love to cook.....The man that I'm seeking should be between 40-87 years old.

When a former exotic dancer tells you she's "lived on the wild side, however, I'm disease & drug free," that translates pretty directly as, "I used to be a hooker." 

But the most striking thing about Alesha's ad is the age range she is willing to consider. Although she is 28, she doesn't seem to be interested in guys 25 - 39. She is only interested in guys age 40 to 87. (Why draw the line there? What's wrong with 88-year-olds?) You have to wonder about the motivation of a 28-year-old who is wiling to consider a paramour of 87. Might she perhaps have a little larceny -- or even burglary -- in her heart?

At least Alesha is not lying about one thing. While dogs are loyal and affectionate, cats are notorious for being the opposite. 

Amy Kristine Chambers-Fields (Manufacturing/Delivering & Possession of Meth)

Sexy Southern lady looking for someone who will love me for who I am... flaws & all...reading, swimming, and rollerblading are a few of my hobbies.....I am told that I have gorgeous blue eyes & a pretty smile. I also have a good sense of humor & love to make others laugh....Looking for someone who is open-minded, intelligent, funny, and most importantly DRUG FREE!

Isn't that last request a bit hypocritical?

Melissa Chapman (First degree murder)

Looking to make new friends & create lifelong connections with like-minded people who love life, learning new things & the value of playing it forward.

Life is too short to hold onto past hurts when we can create new beginnings. Open & honest with many interests, ideas, hopes & dreams. Let's explore them together! Until then, God bless & have a great day! :-)


I was all set to write some snippy comments about how life is too short, especially when you've been murdered, but then I Googled Melissa and found this. It actually does sound as if she was unfairly convicted. So this one was interesting, but in an unexpected way.

Deborah Decker (2nd degree murder)

Fiery redhead. Full of ideas. Full of life. Dominating. I love to have fun!!
....I like slow dancing-mostly in private :-) will try most anything once. Obedience is a requirement in relations. Seeking submissive gentlemen unafraid to step outside "the box"... is it you? :-)

Look Deborah up, and you'll find that she was found guilty of killing both her husband and stepfather by setting fire to their mobile home. (I guess they weren't obedient enough.)

Thank you, Deborah, for confirming all my suspicions about both dominatrixes and redheads.

Brenda Dixon (Murder)

42 yr. old Hazel eyes she devil seeking a dark angel to rescue her. And to captivate her mind and more. I'm naughty by nature, humorous, loving, loyal, but not afraid of life's challenges. Open-minded and adventurous, desire to soar through life's journey with someone. Don't be afraid to write. I won't bite unless you want me to.

Google Brenda and you will find this description of her from an AP article from 2004: 

"Warren County Sheriff Martin Pace described Brenda Dixon, 34, as dangerous. She is accused of killing [her boyfriend] Kevin Paffrath, who was found dead March 25 in his Lake Panasoffkee, Fla., mobile home...'She has a lengthy criminal history. She's been charged with escape by use of force with police officers, and she is currently charged with a brutal murder'."

"Naughty" doesn't quite seem a strong enough word to describe Brenda. How many women have you heard of who've actually pulled a gun on police officers? (She certainly wasn't afraid of that "life's challenge.") And "lengthy criminal history" always gives off the odor of sociopathy. Brenda's not kidding about being a she-devil. 

It tends to be the stronger-looking, more masculine women who are criminals in their own right, and the more feminine ones who get into trouble after getting caught up in their boyfriends' shenanigans. No question which category Brenda falls into. 

Tiffany Duncan (attempted aggravated robbery)

White, 23 yr. old woman is seeking Friendship/companion with possible long-term relationship. Am a mother of 2 very small boys, intelligent, honest, understanding, open-minded, fun to be around, have a great personality, sense of humor, and am out going....Made a bad choice, that's regretted. Am not perfect but try to do what's right in most cases. Don't like to be judged. Love the outdoors, poetry, sports, and to just have fun and enjoy life to its fullest....Am a very kind and caring individual who was born in California....Love attention and touchy-feely type of woman. I am approximately 153 pds., 5'3"...Like to work out sometimes also....Well if you're interested please feel free to write this amazing woman...

Note the "Don't like to be judged." That translates directly as, "I have a narcissistic personality, therefore I explode into a rage at the slightest criticism." Her narcissism is also evinced by the way she describes herself: even in an advertisement, use of the word "amazing" seems extreme. 

I'm struck by the number of inmates who claim to love the outdoors, and wonder if this particular passion is something that has developed since they were incarcerated. I sometimes think that if I were caged up, I would probably feel a yearning to hike, camp, and so on.

Correspondence course

I've been feeling the need for a correspondent recently, what with my email inbox always so empty. So I did what any sensible person would do.

I went to Prisonpenpals.com

Meandering through the various ads was, as always, fascinating. The most interesting part of course was reading between the lines and trying to spot the sociopaths.

There are several themes that run through the ads for female inmates. Many of the women claim that it was their loyalty that got them into trouble. I actually believe that is often the case (even if not as often as claimed). If you look at the crimes the women are convicted of, it's often just possession, meaning that their boyfriends just stored their stashes with them. Or it's harboring a fugitive, which means that after the boyfriend got into trouble, he hid out at her place. Or it's being an accessory of some sort.

So while these women made themselves eminently prosecutable, it's harder to condemn them morally. The vast majority of women convicted of those types of crimes are not sociopaths themselves, but simply had the misfortune to get involved with one, didn't have the sense to get away from him, then got dragged down.

There are also a fair number of women who are in for a DUI which resulted in death. As reprehensible as this is, it's still not premeditated, so the odds are that these women are merely drunks, not sociopaths.

But there are a number of women who give off the distinct odor of sociopathy. One of the clues is the way they describe their crimes. A lot of them say something to the effect of, "I made some bad choices, I'm paying for them now, but I'm looking to improve my life." The phrase "bad choices" in particular is used quite often. It seems to imply an easy mistake, like filling in the wrong oval on the SAT, something any of us could do.

But when the bad choice involves murder, which a fair number of the women were convicted of, it's not quite so simple as filling in a "B" instead of a "C."

Another common pattern is, the worse the person, the more they talk about what a good person they are.

I must confess that while perusing these ads, I tended to be drawn to the ones with more attractive pictures. But good-looking women are as easy to glean psychological insight from as the less attractive ones. A few examples:

Amanda Berry (robbery):

I have learned that my past mistakes do not define me as the woman I have grown to be today. I can say I wouldn't change and I have learned to embrace who I am....Although my mistakes have me paying my debt to society, this debt has taught me that people really can change if this is what they want....Upon my release I would....like to build a nonprofit organization that helps me reach out to children who are victims of child abuse/domestic violence. I would like to show them that there are many alternatives besides the old lifestyle I had chosen. In the meantime please take care and I hope to hear from you soon.

Note how she contradicts herself in the first few sentences. She first says that her past mistakes do not define her as the woman she has grown to be. Then she says she wouldn't change and has learned to embrace who she is. Then she says that people can change. (Make up your mind, Amanda.)

She implies that she was an abused child; this is certainly not her fault, but shows that there wasn't much of a bond between her and her parents, which also means she is much more likely to be a sociopath. 

Also note the "please take care" at the end. Maybe she was just talking in a way she considered polite, but it is also redolent of the false "caring" that sociopaths often exhibit. 

Look at those tattoos: both arms are covered, and she seems to have one at the top of her chest. One has to wonder how much of the rest of her is covered. Most tattoos, whatever they actually say, send the message: I don't care that much about myself, so you can bet I don't give a hoot about you.

And keep in mind, robbery is not burglary: the latter implies stealth, the former a gun.

All in all, pretty scary.

Tiffany Star Brigman (drugs):

"Fallen Star"... In search of redemption. 
Sensual, intelligent, and extremely seductive 36 year old female seeks friendship with endless possibilities... Raised in the south, yet residing in Sin City has given me the perfect combination of charm and bad girl antics.
Quick witted with a wickedly funny personality that is sure to please.
Measurements 36C-29-36, 5 9 tall, 130 pounds, and hazel eyes.




Tiffany is not lying about being "extremely seductive," though she might have done better by simply letting her picture speak for her. My guess is that she moved to Vegas to be a showgirl, and found that she could make even more money by working as an "escort" on the side. "Tiffany Star" certainly sounds like a stripper's name. If it's not her stage name, and her parents actually gave her that name....yikes. Note that she includes the "C" with her measurements, and note also her pose at right; she's been around enough to know what guys are interested in.

All in all, the kind of girl you hope to run into on a trip to Vegas. But maybe not the ideal correspondent.

Holli Lyn Baty (3rd degree murder):

I am 31 years old, have brown hair and brown eyes, and am 5'7" 140. I am athletic and enjoy all kinds of outdoor sports and activities. I am very outgoing, have a good sense of humor, and have a positive outlook on life and my future. I have never been married, but am very family oriented. My mom is my best friend and my nephew is my favorite person in the world.

I am a great Pen Pal and loyal friend. I enjoy cooking, camping, fishing, and hiking most of all and volleyball is my favorite sport to play. I also love watching football and NASCAR on tv. I am a girly-girl, but I don't have a problem getting dirty either. Science is my favorite academic subject and I hope to finish my degree in Environmental Science upon my release. If you are looking for a down-to-Earth, open-minded friend to correspond with, then I'm your girl.

The weird thing about Holli is that there's not much about her ad that is scary, other than the fact that she is a murderer. (I looked her up: she killed her boyfriend's 4-year-old daughter, who died of cranial trauma; Holli was also convicted of aggravated child abuse at the same time; the child had been battered over a period of months before she died. Baty's release date is 2030.) But to look at the ad, the only thing that seems trashy is the "alternative" spellings of both her first and middle names. (What is it with criminals and misspelled first names?) 

Otherwise, what with her interest in environmental science, she could be another Earth Mother hippie type. You know, all peace and love. And, I guess, child-killing.

Natalya Nicole Baker (1st degree murder):

I'm an old soul, 29 years old, looking for some friends to share my smile with. I've been incarcerated since 2006 and still have several years to go, so I get a bit lonely at times. I love to laugh, learn new things, exercise, listen to music, write, read, and love spending time in the sun (smile). I'm an eccentric, compassionate, positive/optimistic, kindhearted and loving woman who is willing to spend time in getting to know you.

I feel that my past has brought me to my knees and has made me a better woman today. Only prayer, meditation and forgiveness. Okay friend it's your turn now! I'd love to get to know you! Please send a photo or two so I know who I'm talking to!

Natalya was found guilty of killing a 19-year-old boy at the end of a long robbery spree with three men. She tried to get a retrial on the grounds that she too was a victim of the three men, but the judge said that not only was she not a victim, she was in fact the one who laid the groundwork for the murder. 

Natalya is a good illustration of the rule that the worse the person, the more they talk about how nice they are. Note that she is "compassionate, positive/optimistic, kindhearted, and loving." Sounds great. But actions speak louder than words. 


So far, no luck. But I'm still optimistic about finding a pen pal: I've only gotten through the B's in these alphabetically-ordered ads.

"Psychopaths, 'Dark' Personalities Better at Making Themselves Look Attractive, Study Suggests"

A study by two researchers at Washington University in St. Louis found that sociopaths (another word for psychopaths) were more skillful than normal people at using clothing, makeup, and hairstyles to make themselves more attractive. 

This makes perfect sense: sociopaths are skillful at manipulation, and part of manipulation is influencing people with your looks. It stands to reason that they would put more effort into enhancing their appearance, something normal people might be too embarrassed to do. 

It also fits in with another thing I've noticed: that sociopaths are far more likely to have plastic surgery. (Think of it as another "mask" the sociopath wears.) And if they're male, they're far more likely to use steroids.

Most (certainly not all) non-sociopaths are too embarrassed to have plastic surgery because of what it says about their vanity. And most guys wouldn't take steroids because it would be cheating (at least in a sports context). 

Sociopaths don't feel embarrassment, and they don't feel guilt, so they do both of those things. And if they don't hesitate to get plastic surgery or take steroids, they're certainly not going to think twice about using dress, makeup, and hairstyling to achieve their goals. 

"Kim Kardashian brings out fans, Islamists, and police in Bahrain"

An article from Reuters today described the locals' reaction to a certain Westerner's arrival in Bahrain yesterday: 

MANAMA (Reuters) - Television celebrity Kim Kardashian brought out screaming fans, angry Muslim hardliners and police throwing stun grenades on Saturday when she visited Bahrain to launch a milkshake franchise, witnesses said.

About 100 Sunni Salafists demonstrated with banners outside The Walk Bahrain, an upmarket mall in the capital Manama, after some MPs tried to block the visit over what they called her "bad reputation", according to a local newspaper.

Thousands of fans, who had paid up to 500 Bahraini dinars ($1,360) a ticket, broke into hysterical screams as the 32-year-old celebrity launched the Millions of Milkshakes franchise inside the mall.

Witnesses said police dispersed the demonstrators with stun grenades as the inauguration proceeded inside. There were no reports of casualties....

Honestly, who is crazier: protesters who don't want Kim Kardashian in their country, or fans who would pay $1360 for the privilege of seeing her in the flesh?

I gotta side with the Sunnis on this one.

Middle age wasted on the middle-aged

You occasionally hear the saying, youth is wasted on the young.

I know my youth was wasted. Not in the sense that I had a "misspent youth" hanging around pool parlors, getting drunk, partying, and otherwise generally being a wastrel.

It was wasted in the sense that I didn't do enough of that sort of thing. If I could live my life over again, I'd forget about competitive swimming, or at least be less neurotic about it. Or maybe instead I'd have wrestled, which I probably would have been better at.

But mostly I'd just chase girls more. I wouldn't worry about making a fool of myself, or looking bad, or even being offensive. I'd just be much more uninhibited about the whole thing.

Looking back, I realize I was so shy I didn't even realize I was shy.

If I could do it again, I'd act more like the people I generally looked down on. You know, the particularly un-shy ones.

I wouldn't worry about what people thought of me -- what a waste of time that was. And I'd tell people what I thought of them -- both good and bad.

But all this makes me wonder: do old people feel that middle age is wasted on the middle-aged?

I have a feeling I'll look back, think of the ruts I was in (am in), and think I wasted my middle age as well.

The most interesting things

The most interesting things are always those which are unexpected, or even taboo. Wow, Bill Clinton is a sociopath. Wow, Barack Obama is a homosexual. Wow, sasquatch might actually exist.

A lot of people are very uncomfortable going outside mainstream thought: they are afraid that others will think them foolish, and laugh at them. For some reason, I don't have that fear. (Maybe I should, but I don't.) So I don't mind stating my opinions like those cited in the first paragraph.

I've certainly been scoffed at, and I'm sure an even higher number scoff at me behind my back. But ever since I was told my IQ was high when I was a kid, it's just never occurred to me to worry about my intelligence. I may not be as smart as I think I am, and there are certainly plenty of people who are smarter, but I know I'm smarter than most. So I don't worry about others thinking I'm dumb. Or even crazy.

It's not that I don't have insecurities. I worry that I'm weak, or soft. (Probably because I am.) So I try to act macho. If anything, that sort of behavior probably makes me appear even weaker, and softer.

A lot of people are that way about their intelligence: they never express an original opinion for fear that people might laugh at them, or think them off in some way. They cleave to the middle of every road in an almost desperate attempt to seem "balanced" and avoid any sort of public censure.

They don't realize that this just betrays a second rate intelligence -- at best.

This is exactly what the enforcers of political correctness count on: peoples' intellectual timidity. They know that with enough intimidation, people won't stray to conclusions the facts lead them to, but rather will stay within the boundaries of what's deemed respectable to think.

When you have a population which is too insecure to believe the evidence of their own eyes and come to their own conclusions, and which is too intimidated to speak their minds, then you have a politically correct, easily manipulable society. It's what our media masters want -- and it is, for the most part, what they've gotten.

So go ahead and be as timid in your opinions as you like. You'll actually be making your life much less interesting by limiting your thinking to what's generally considered "acceptable."

And be aware that acting like a sheep doesn't make you look intelligent.

The "bag man"

It looks as if the NYPD has caught the latest serial killer operating in the city, Salvatore Perrone --

-- yet another sociopath with those weirdly thin lips. (Can't explain it, can't think why it would be so, but I keep seeing it.)

Dealing with rejection

How well someone takes rejection speaks volumes about who they are as a person.

There are few more impressive than the guy who, upon being rebuffed, can say that he still likes the girl, perhaps turns his rejection into a joke, and acts amused by the whole thing.

On the other hand, there's nothing less impressive than one who, upon being turned down by a girl, accuses her of being a dyke. (I seemed to know a lot of guys like this in college.)

Similarly, a woman who finds out that a guy is not interested in her sexually and takes it in stride is admirable.

But one who becomes filled with rage and then tells her friends that she thinks the guy must be gay, or suggests that he get therapy for sexual ambivalence, or somesuch, is one with a very fragile ego -- and such egos tend to come with a tenuous grip on reality. (I've known a few of these, too.)

Mr. Sensitive

One of the most ridiculous articles I've ever seen.

A Baltimore Raven, Jacoby Jones, was being interviewed on the sidelines by an attractive reporter, Michele Tafoya, and he answered her politely. At the end, when she congratulated him on his play, he replied "Thank you gorgeous," gave a quick wink, and ran off.

Doug Farrar of Yahoo Sports saw an opportunity to burnish his pc credentials, so lambasted Jones for not having treated her with the "same respect and regard any man would in a similar circumstance."

One of the funny things about the article is that when you look at the picture of Doug Farrar, he looks exactly like the kind of fat slob who loves to guzzle beer and watch football games and yell at the screen, but never do any exercise himself. He doesn't exactly look like a, uh, feminist. (Perhaps he's aware of the image he presents, and thus felt obliged to present this paean to his own "sensitivity.")

Here is a picture of Doug:

It's worth taking a look at the interchange between Jones and Tafoya, which is embedded in the article. Jones doesn't linger over the word "gorgeous," nor does he make a leering wink. He actually struck me as quite polite.

How offended are you when someone calls you "gorgeous," or "sugar," or "hon"?

One of the problems with liberalism is that it results in these ever escalating wars of political correctness, where people fall all over themselves trying to outdo each other in showing how correct and easily "offended" they are.

Okay Doug, you win this round.

Connery vs. Craig

In comparing the two best Bonds, Connery and Craig, you have to say Craig is the better actor. He can express ennui, world-weariness, pathos, vulnerability, frustration, disgust, and sardonic humor. And he does it all without overacting.

Connery can express coolness, and toughness, and well, mostly just Connery-ness. He was the equivalent of a beautiful woman: a parade of sex appeal who doesn't really need to be anything else. (With a beautiful woman, you don't really expect a great personality, you just hope that her personality isn't too horrible.)

A better comparison might be Hulk Hogan, who couldn't really do much inside the ring. He had none of the acrobatic movies which the real athletes had: he couldn't do flips, or jump from the ropes, or even any of the standard wrestling moves. But he didn't really need to, because he was the Hulkster and looked the part and all his fans had Hulkamania. Hogan even looked a little like Connery, with the line under his cheekbone running backward rather than forward:

Daniel Craig just misses being really handsome, but he looks tough, which is enough for the role. His 3/4 angle looks good, and he has a great profile as well.

But Craig's straight on view isn't quite as good. (His close set eyes and wide nose aren't visible from the 3/4 or side view.) One weird thing about his face: his lips don't match. Usually a person either has two full lips or two thin lips; Craig has a thin upper lip combined with a full lower lip:

Craig looks as if he works out all day, as befits a modern action hero. Connery looked as if he hadn't done anything but drink martinis and smoke since the age of 23, which is probably pretty much what he had done. But Connery still exuded far more natural manliness than Craig.

One advantage Craig has is better writers. In Thunderball, after shooting a bad guy with a spear gun, Connery quipped, "He got the point." After shooting down an enemy helicopter in From Russia With Love, he said, "I'd say one of their aircraft is missing." Back in the 60's, these lines were actually considered witty.

In Skyfall, after seeing one of the bad guys dragged off by a Komodo dragon (in a casino), Craig says philosophically, "Ah, the circle of life." After exiting the Komodo pit he hands the girl a suitcase filled with four million dollars and says, nonchalantly, "Put it all on red" (i.e., bet it on roulette).

An actor is responsible for his own professionalism, but at a certain level, he can only be as good as his writers and script allow him to be.

I mean, the writing has to be sharp. Get the point?

More evidence of electoral fraud

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/the-big-list-of-vote-fraud-reports/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/adding-up-the-evidence-to-a-stolen-election/

Anybody with an open mind will have a hard time reading these (and following the links within them) and not coming to the conclusion that there was fraud.

Real intellectual courage

Every now and then when I read an editorial by Thomas Sowell or Walter E. Williams, or hear Clarence Thomas's name on a Supreme Court vote, or read about Ward Connerly and his anti-affirmative action referendums, I think about the lonely lives these guys must lead.

It takes a lot of courage to speak honestly if you're a conservative black, because  you will inevitably be scorned by other blacks, and called an "Uncle Tom."

The NY Post runs editorials by Thomas Sowell occasionally, and these have a consistently conservative bent. One attack on him by Patricia Roberts Harris, an official in the Carter administration, was typical. According to Wkipedia:

[Harris] once said that Sowell and Walter E. Williams "don't know what poverty is." Sowell called her position "a pathetic sign of intellectual bankruptcy," saying that he "was almost 9 years old before [he] lived in a home with [hot] running water" and that she "was a campus social leader in an 'exclusive sorority' - meaning that it was for middle-class (light-skinned) women" while he worked full-time and went to [the same college] at night."

(Williams grew up in a housing project.)

Clarence Thomas is widely derided in the black community for his conservative views. His most famous critic was Anita Hill, who had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and later at the EEOC, who accused him during his confirmation hearings of asking if someone had put a pubic hair on his Coca Cola can and talking about porn to her. We'll never know for sure who was telling the truth in that he said-she said controversy; what we do know is that after their professional association ended, Hill later talked with Thomas on the phone, met with him, and even dined with him.

Ward Connerly led anti-affirmative action referendums in several states (all successful, although several were partially overridden by the courts). In 1995, then California State Senator Diane Watson said about him, "He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

If you're black, and advocate what's best for the country as a whole rather than just what's best for blacks, you're looked upon as a traitor. You will be ostracized by the black community, made an outcast from your own tribe.

And then, you can't really take comfort hanging out with white people. Whites may befriend you, but most of them will still be strangely awkward around you, especially the liberal whites.

Most people can't take this, so they stay on the reservation. After all, who wants to be thought of as Benedict Arnold -- even if he's right?

Not that many people have the courage of their convictions. The fellows I've just mentioned do. I salute them. 

Shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Perhaps the most surprising thing to emerge from the Petraeus scandal is that people are so surprised about it. True, Petraeus looks like a straight arrow and his military bearing is not one that brings to mind  the image of a "lounge lizard." But he is a guy, and newsflash, guys to tend to act like guys when given the opportunity.

To the best of my knowledge, I've known two CIA guys (neither admitted it to me), and both were prolific womanizers. When your life is all about skullduggery, would you draw the line at an illicit affair? And why would it be any different at the top?

My guess, if everybody in the federal government who had some sort of illicit sex had to resign, we'd have to hold elections again, next week. And most of Congress, as well as the Executive branch, would be up for grabs.

Skyfall

I'd read about a half dozen reviews of Skyfall before going to see the movie yesterday evening, and fully expected to hate it. Much of what I read made it sound as if they had toyed with the Bond formula too much, to the point of sacrilege. But the changes were good.

Q is now being played by 31-year-old Ben Whishaw (he looks more like 21). I'd gotten used to Desmond Llewelyn, who'd played the role in 17 Bond movies, up until his death in 1999. And I don't go to a Bond movie to see characters who look like college students. But the movie cleverly works Whishaw's age into the script, and turns it into a plus.

I'd read that Javier Bardem makes the villain campy. Camp was the kiss of death for Never Say Never Again (all prints of which should be destroyed immediately; it needs to be eradicated like the smallpox virus). But Bardem is more gay than camp, and it works in the context of his character. He is evil, but evil for reasons we can sympathize with. He is also, as all archvillains should be, diabolically intelligent.

I'd read that the movie takes you back to Bond's childhood, and explains certain things about him. My initial thinking on that was, do we really need to know that much about his backstory? James Bond is supposed to wind up in bed with a beauty, not on the couch talking to a shrink. But the psychoanalysis is minimal, and the scenes which take place in his ancestral home work well.

There is an old Scottish gamekeeper who is played by Albert Finney. One of the reviewers pointed out that this was a role which must have been written for Sean Connery, who must have passed on the role. I had my doubts until I heard the gamekeeper call Bond as a "jacked-up little shit." Those words were definitely written for Connery.

M, played by Judi Dench, figures prominently in this movie, playing a central role in the plot. As one reviewer said, we now know that M stands for Mommy. (I'd like to claim that line as my own but can't.)

Naomie Harris, as the good Bond girl, looks breathtakingly beautiful from some angles, less so from others. But she is playful and flirtatious, as she is supposed to be. Berenice Marlohe, as the bad Bond girl, is actually a better actress than looker. (Aren't Bond girls supposed to be the reverse?)

Bond movies have traditionally been better in the first half, and tend to run out of imagination in the second. Both halves of Skyfall were great.

The action scenes were as good as ever. It helps that Craig is so athletic-looking. He looks less 'roided-up here than he did in Casino Royale, but his bone structure still makes him look like the former SAS type he is supposed to be. There seems to be a general consensus among the reviewers these days that Craig is the second best Bond ever. I agree.

But while Craig may only be the second best Bond, this may actually be the best Bond movie ever.

Electoral fraud

This article about electoral shenanigans is worth reading. Devvy Kidd has compiled a list of reports detailing different instances of reported fraudulent activity in the Presidential election.

A couple of the instances actually favor Romney; but most favor Obama. Follow the links in her article to get a sense of how easy it is to commit fraud at the local level.

Yep, that must be the reason

David Petraeus just resigned as head of the CIA because he had an extramarital affair after 37 years of marriage.

I honestly cannot recall anybody else who resigned from public office this way. There have been people who have been caught in affairs, and have stopped running for public office as a result. But to -- as best I can tell -- volunteer that he had an affair, and then just quit?

Especially a guy who's in charge of the CIA, who runs all the top secret cloak and dagger black ops that this country engages in. He's really that straight-laced?

I mean, I've seen the James Bond movies, and, well.....how disappointing.

Looks to me as if Petraeus was just looking for an excuse to get out, and this was the best he could come up with.

He should have tried something a little more credible, like the classic "wanted to spend more time with his family" line.

Yep, an affair. I'm sure this had nothing to do with how the administration refused aid to those four men who were killed in Benghazi. And I'm sure the timing -- three days after the election -- was entirely a coincidence.

I'm not as smart as I thought

I sure called this one wrong: I had thought right up until yesterday evening that Romney would win. I figured that Obama had lost the swing voters, and that his base would be less motivated to get to the polls than in '08. I had thought that the polls were oversampling Democrats, and that the Bradley Effect was still in play. I thought that Romney (read: anti-Obama) voters would be more motivated, and would show up in full force. Now it all looks like wishful thinking.

I'm trying to console myself with the thought that Obama is less likely to get us into a land war than Romney would have been. And he is more likely to stick to the timetable of withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014, even if he has to lie about how his surge succeeded. (The country will obviously fall to the Taliban the minute we leave.)

I'm also mystified by the fact that Asian voters went for Obama by a margin of 75 - 25. Do they not realize how much they will be hurt by the disparate impact/redistributionist/affirmative action mentality of the Obama administration? (I hereby renounce my Japanese ancestry.)

There's been almost no talk of voting irregularities, but I wouldn't entirely discount the possibility of fraud. I did hear of one instance where a retarded 57-year-old who had never voted before was taken by the group home attendants where she lived to vote for Obama. When she told her parents about her vote, they were mystified, saying that she wouldn't even have known who the two candidates were. That was just one instance involving one vote, but it's not hard to believe that it might not have been repeated on a much larger scale. I'm not even sure that that was illegal, by the way: it's her Constitutional right to vote every bit as much as it's yours or mine. 

In any case, she is a fitting metaphor for Obama's electorate.

And, I must admit, for me, for having thought that Romney would win.

It's hard to escape the feeling that in the long run -- and now even in the short run -- this country is doomed.

This past year, for the first time, we fell off the list of the ten most prosperous nations. And with Obama in power for four more years, we will continue to fall.

Waitin' for Sandy

Sitting here, waiting for the hurricane, with everything on the East Coast closed down, the whole place has a little bit of a last-days-of-Pompeii feel to it.

The wonderful thing about an event like this is that it brings everyone's personality out in full bloom. The people you would expect to do so are running around preparing for the Apocalypse, while others are more nonchalant.

Even the politicians, like characters in a well-written screenplay, are all behaving completely in character.

Governor Christie of New Jersey told residents of his state, "Don't be stupid" (i.e., evacuate if you live on the coast).

The only thing more Christie-like he could have said is, "Stop being such a bunch of goddamn morons!"

New York City Mayor Bloomberg delivered a ten minute speech in a nasal monotone, droning on to residents about all the precautions they should take.

The only thing more Bloomberg-like would have been to go on for another fifteen minutes.

And President Obama read from a Teleprompter about how the federal government was "working effectively" with state and local governments to, essentially, save us all.

The only thing more Obama-like would have been to claim that the hurricane was all Bush's fault.

After Sandy passes, expect everyone to continue acting in character.

The Paperboy

Ignored the critics, who gave The Paperboy only a 38% positive rating on Rottentomatoes.com, and saw it last night. It was entertaining, which is all one should ever ask of a movie.

A critic's #1 job is to show how intelligent he is. His #2 job is to show how refined his sensibilities are. And his #3 job is to show how cleverly cutting he can be. (As the writer of this review, I plead guilty to all three.)

In any case, letting you know whether you'd actually enjoy the movie doesn't even make most critics' lists.

The operative word for the movie is "steamy." It's a film noir set in late 60's Florida, with all the social commentary on that time and place you'd expect from a movie made by Hollywood in 2012.

Nicole Kidman vamps it up as a sultry siren with a fixation on men in prison. She seems to enjoy playing cheap, which she does well. The only problem was that at 5' 11" she towers over most of the men who are supposed to be lusting after her. (She had this same problem while playing Tom Cruise's wife, and for that and other reasons, I never found her convincing in that role.)

Zac Efron does a solid job as a former college swimming champion who is the son of a local newspaper publisher. Efron is about eye level with Kidman's breasts, which might explain his character's fixation on her. But Efron did bring to mind a cardinal Hollywood rule, which is to hide your gayness if you want to be considered for romantic leading roles. Also, when Efron enters the water and takes a few strokes, it's painfully obvious he was never a swimmer, though I doubt most moviegoers would be as bothered by this quibble as I was.

Matthew McConaughey played Efron's older brother, a Miami reporter who come to town to investigate whether a local man convicted of murder is in fact guilty. I've also heard that McConaughey is gay, but coincidentally, so is his character here. That knowledge actually seemed to enhance his credibility in the role, not sure why. I've never mistaken Arnold Schwarzenegger for an actual tough guy, yet that's never bothered me while watching him play a role. But knowing about an actor's sexuality is somehow more distracting.

The Efron-sized David Oyelowo did a good job as the reporter who is McConaughey's reporting partner from Miami. (He may have been cast so that it seemed credible that Efron could beat him in a fight.) It's to the moviemaker's credit that they didn't make Oyelowo's character too noble, as moviemakers tended to do with the vast majority of black characters until quite recently.

John Cusack was excellent as the convict, though not quite masculine enough. A guy who can come in his pants without even touching himself is a guy with a lot of male hormones, and the baby-faced Cusack, no matter how disheveled and profane, just doesn't look like that guy. (Now there's a role for Schwarzenegger -- except Arnold wouldn't have had the acting chops to pull it off.)

Anyway, some of what the critics said was true. The Southern gothic aspects do verge on camp. The accents aren't quite right. The movie does condescend to its characters. And it's awfully tawdry.

But none of that detracts from the fun, and some of it actually adds to it.

Ted Kaczynski

For a long time, the Unabomber was a figure of terror, mailing bombs to a seemingly random assortment of people. When Ted Kaczynski was finally caught, he seemed, as is so often the case with serial killers, a strangely pathetic figure.

He lived alone in a cabin in Montana and when arrested, had $33 in his bank account. And rather than the somewhat dashing-looking police sketch of him, he turned out to look like your average homeless guy:





He has been described as a Luddite, who railed against our industrial society; somehow this seemed a fitting cause for him. It was my impression at the time that he was probably a paranoid schizophrenic, although I didn't look all that closely.

It turned out that he had gone to Harvard, and had been some sort of math genius early in his life, with a tested IQ of 167, before he dropped out of society. He had also spent two years as an associate professor of mathematics at Berkeley

When he was caught, many news reports mentioned his 35,000 word manifesto, but it never once occurred to me to read it: why bother looking at the ravings of a madman?

Not to mention that his crimes were so despicable, so cowardly, and so destructive, that he didn't deserve to have his manifesto read.

But someone told me the other day that he had taken a look, and he read me a brief excerpt. The portion he read me made sense, so, curious to see what the freak had written, I took a look for myself. It's certainly easy enough to find on the internet.

It turns out that the first part of his manifesto (all I've read so far) is an analysis of leftism. I don't agree with the analysis in its entirety (then again, I don't agree with anybody on everything). But parts of it are actually brilliant, with insights I'd never heard before. An excerpt:

Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY 

By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology). 

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. 

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful. 

Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser....

Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

[The leftist's] feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.... 

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. 

If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss. 

We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

That is actually an insightful description of why some -- not all -- people become leftists. And this first part of the manifesto itself is actually Exhibit A for why we should judge arguments on their own merits, not on the merits of the arguer.