George Will and Charles Krauthammer

The two smartest guys in Washington DC are now both on Fox News, and sometimes you can see them together on the 6 PM show.

George Will and Charles Krauthammer are both extremely analytical, commonsensical, eloquent, and incisive. Both have original insights. And maybe most impressively, both express those insights not just in complete sentences, but in complete paragraphs.

It just hit me last night what I love about listening to them most: both men speak more eloquently than I write.

I think I sound fairly smart on paper -- but there are many people, who, when given ample time for rewrites, can manage to do so. If you meet me in person, you won't be impressed -- I can pretty much guarantee that. I sound just like everyone else. And by "everyone else" I mean like half the teenage girls you know. I pepper my speech liberally with "like's" and "you know's" and plenty of swears.

So, maybe a teenage girl crossed with a truck driver.

On top of that, I'm just not quick on my feet. Give me ten minutes and I can come up with the perfect one line response. (If you want two lines, I'll need twenty minutes.) But I can almost never come up with the perfect response on the spur of the moment.

But Will and Krauthammer speak in polished essays. I can only hope -- after numerous revisions -- to write a sentence as well-constructed as the sentences they utter. (Will actually sounds as if he's reading one of his own essays when he speaks.)

I went to Harvard and worked at Goldman Sachs, so I've met a fair number of smart people in my life. And I've met far, far many more arrogant types who merely think they're smart. (As I said, I went to Harvard and worked at Goldman.)

But none of them, not even the few who actually were really smart, spoke in polished essay form.

There are no other talking heads who do it, not on Fox, nor on any of the other news channels. Not even Megyn Kelly, Fox's newest prime time host, who comes across smarter than O'Reilly and Hannity, does it. Only Will and Krauthammer can do it.

Both men are undoubtedly given the topics to be discussed ahead of time, and thus have some time to prepare their comments beforehand, which helps. Still, the other members of the panels are also afforded that opportunity, yet none come across nearly as eloquent as Will and Krauthammer. And many of Will and Krauthammer's comments are responses to the other panelists, which are by necessity ad libbed.

It's humbling to listen to them. My usual reaction: "That's so true….why couldn't I think of that?" (A rhetorical question.)

Let me put it as I would if I were speaking to you in person: Will and Krauthammer are just, like, you know, fucking geniuses! I mean, shit!

"Girl crawls out of grave after being raped, buried alive"

If they gave a Nobel Prize for Toughness, this Pakistani girl should be a nominee. The scene could have been straight out of Kill Bill Volume 2.

Local police didn't even want to investigate the incident at first. This is the type of thing feminists (and other) should focus their energies on -- not whether men in Western societies look at women the wrong way.

People who need distraction

One measure of a person's self-sufficiency -- and really, overall worth as a human being -- is how easily bored he gets. To what extent can he rely on his thoughts to entertain himself? How much distraction does he need?

We all need distraction; but the more frantic its pursuit, the higher the potential downside of the activity, and the less tolerance for a few moments of quiet reflection, the lower the quality of the person.

(Think fast cars, loud music, fireworks, games, guns, gambling, vandalism, alcohol, drugs, and ever-present smartphones.)

It's almost mathematical: the greater and more dramatic the distraction needed, the worse the person. (The "proof" of this theorem is that sociopaths are easily bored and will do anything to distract themselves.)

People who need loud music and drugs and the types of things that make one feel one is "out of one's mind" are making a tacit admission that, under normal conditions, their minds are not pleasant places to be. Which is another way of saying, they don't like themselves.

And if they can't stand themselves, why should you? If they spend much of their time essentially trying to crawl out of that hellhole of a brain, keep your distance.

How many times have you heard people say, "I drink to numb myself, to drown out the noise in my head," or words to that effect?

Spend enough time with that person and you'll eventually be "hearing" that noise, one way or another.

You probably won't find it a pleasant sound.

Hypocrisy, small and large

One of the best ways to judge someone's character is to determine whether he would get along with himself. If he constantly criticizes others for things he does himself, then he wouldn't. And that means he is that lowest form of life, a hypocrite.

With someone like that, you should take everything he says with a grain of salt, and discount his opinions. You certainly don't want to befriend him.

Likewise, if you ever want to know which politicians are credible, look for the hypocrisy.

A politician who has taken both sides of an issue, depending on which happens to be politically convenient at the time, renounces his credibility.

Such a politician is nothing but a spin artist, no more credible as those campaign staffers who will always come out after a debate and opine that their man won.

Whenever there's a racial flare up, ask yourself what would have happened had the races had been reversed in that situation. Would the usual agitators have flown in to make hay out of the situation? Would they be saying the same thing?

Figure out who the hypocrites are, and it gives you a much better sense of the right and wrong of any situation.

For instance, if one side accuses the other of electoral fraud or intimidation, but ignores that which their own side encourages, that's all you need to know.

If one side accuses the other of being "haters," but seems to be much more spiteful and ill-mannered and gratuitously insulting themselves, that tells you everything about the "character" of that side.

Likewise, it's always illuminating to see what the media prefers to pay attention to. Which scandals are kept in public view and which are allowed to slip down the memory hole? Which types of crimes are given a lot of publicity and which are ignored?

If a newspaper or television station prefers to only give attention when the criminal is one race and the victim another, but studiously ignores crimes going in the other direction, that tells you everything you need to know about that media outlet, and their credibility.

People manifest their character through their hypocrisy, or lack thereof, and so do political parties and the media.

My revised Ancestry.com results

Back in July I reported that I had gotten my Ancestry.com results and they had been as follows:

49% East Asian
22% British Isles
13% Central European
8% Finnish/Volga-Ural
8% uncertain

Yesterday I got an email from the company headlined:

"Come see your new Ancestry.com results."

Below, the text read, "AncestryDNA has evolved. And the results are amazing." 

This is basically their Marketing Department's way of saying, "We screwed up the first time. Here are your more accurate, detailed results, with our apologies." 

Here are the new results they sent:

REGION   APPROXIMATE AMOUNT

Africa  0%
Other Regions Tested:
Africa Southeastern Bantu  0%
Africa South-Central Hunter-Gatherers  0%
Senegal  0%
Africa North  0%
Ivory Coast/Ghana  0%
Benin/Togo  0%
Cameroon/Congo  0%
Mali  0%
Nigeria  0%

America  < 1%
Native American  < 1%

Asia  49%
Asia East  48%
Asia Central  < 1%
Asia South  0%

Europe  48%
Great Britain  15%
Iberian Peninsula  12%
Europe West  8%
Ireland  4%
Scandinavia  4%
Finnish/Northern Russia  2%
Italy/Greece  2%
Europe East  1%
European Jewish  0%

Pacific Islander  0%
Polynesia  0%
Melanesia  0%

West Asia 2%
Caucasus  < 1%
Near East  < 1%

There are two ways of looking at this. The first would be: geez, I'm even more of a mutt than I'd thought. The second would be to rejoice that I can claim kinship with so many different groups.

If diversity is indeed strength, then I must be truly powerful.

However, even the briefest glance at myself -- and my position in society -- puts the lie to that saying.

I'm almost -- almost -- a little disappointed not to be just a smidgen African. It would have provided a neat little defense every time someone accused me of racism: "What are you talking about? I'm part black myself!" -- spoken in a tone of injured wonderment at the unfairness of the accusation. 

It's surprising that one of the African sub-groups was described as "Africa South-Central Hunter-Gatherers." In this politically correct age, isn't that description considered a tad insensitive? Why was that the only group whose means of subsistence was mentioned? And, for that matter, in this country, doesn't "South Central" most commonly refer to that section of Los Angeles where the, uh, hunter-gatherers reside?

It turns out I do have some Native American blood, even if it's less than 1%. This is sort of ironic, considering I look somewhat like a Native American. Or, rather, Indian, as we prefer to be called. Personally, I don't even mind being called a "redskin" -- especially if it qualifies me to open up a casino.

The new results show that I'm 48% East Asian, and 1% Central Asian. I do try to overcome my Japanese heritage by being rude as often as possible. (This post is yet another attempt.)

I'll just assume the 1% Central Asian means that I'm a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. Expect me to emphasize that "fact" in the future -- especially when in my cups.

The 15% Great Britain is even less than the 22% in the original analysis I received in July, and that was far less than the roughly 50% I had believed all my life until a few months ago. 

The 12% Iberian Peninsula is the biggest surprise; the previous analysis had not mentioned that ethnicity at all, and I had no inkling that I had any Spanish blood. Again, it's sort of ironic, since I look vaguely "Hispanic." But Spaniards and Portuguese -- have little in common with the Central American Amerindians who are referred to as Hispanics in this country. And even though I look "Hispanic," I am part Iberian. So maybe I should learn to bullfight. Or rather, given my courage level, to do the flamenco.

Instead of being 13% Central European, I'm now 8% "Europe West" and 1% "Europe East." Europe West on the Ancestry.com map includes Germany, France, Austria, and the Czech Republic, but nothing east of that. I could go crazy wondering whether I'm French or German, since they are such culturally opposite places. But given that my father thought he was part "Pennsylvania Dutch," which is in fact German, it's probably Heil Hitler for me.

Europe East, on the other hand, ranges from Latvia to Bulgaria, Poland to the Ukraine. That covers a lot of territory. But considering that only 1/100th of me comes from there, I'm not going to waste much time wondering which country.

I'm 4% Irish. I suppose it makes sense that I'm such a watered down bottle of Guinness, since I only feel as if I've kissed the Blarney Stone around 1/25th of the time. (The other 24/25ths, I'm tongue-tied.)

I'm 4% Scandinavian. Even if Hollywood is not breaking down the door attempting to cast me as Thor, it's nice to know I'm distantly related to the Swedish Bikini Team.

I'm now 2% -- and no longer 8% -- Finnish/Northern Russian. Come to think of it, Moscow did seem a pretty alien place when I visited back in 1968.

I'm 2% Italian/Greek, also a surprise. Evidently Ancestry.com has not gotten to the point where they can separate those two ethnicities yet. And maybe, given the scope and dominance of both the Greek and Roman Empires, they'll never will.

Either way, it won't stop me from telling the Italians I know that I'm a paisan. Maybe I'll even start dressing a little flashier and hinting that I'm connected. ("You think you can talk that way to me? Hey -- I know people.") I draw the line at going full Jersey Shore, however.

And if a myopic person ever decides to tell me I'm built like a Greek God, I'll demur. But inside, of course, I'll be thinking: Ain't it the truth -- in more ways than one!

I'm roughly 1% "Caucasus." Given my ornery nature, that portion is probably Chechnyan. 

And while I'm 0% European Jewish, I am almost 1% "Near East." This means that while I have no Ashkenazi blood, there is a possibility of some Sephardic. So there's hope yet for a career in -- and positive coverage by -- the media. If my "Near East" is not Sephardic, I'll happily settle for being a member of the Saudi royal family.

I'm 0% Pacific Islander, which makes it a bit hard to explain my lifelong inchoate yearning for that part of the world.

Given my father's original belief that he was almost entirely British Isles-descended, my guess is that my Scandinavian blood came from the Vikings who invaded Scotland and Ireland, that the 2% Italian/Greek dated back to the Roman invasion of Britannia, and that the 12% Iberian was at least partly some form of "Black Irish" dating back to the Spanish Armada.

All of those groups demonstrated horribly bad manners with those invasions. But now that I know their blood runs in my veins, I find myself less inclined to castigate them.

Although I like to consider myself above such things, tribal identity does influence outlook.

Ted Cruz's expression

I know this will make me sound superficial and probably downright idiotic, but whenever I see someone who looks just extremely pleased with himself, I feel an immediate instinctive dislike. (I don't think I am alone in this reaction.) In many photographs one sees of Ted Cruz, he seems to just radiate conceit:

Cruz is probably best known for the recent government shutdown, the result of a particularly ill-conceived, unrealistic attempt to derail Obamacare. Did he really think that popular sentiment would be won when the media was inevitably going to blame the Republicans for the shutdown?

Obamacare has been a disaster in both conceptualization and execution thus far, but defeating it in the long run will require more adroit tactics. Cruz gives off the air of someone so narcissistic as to be unrealistic about what he can and cannot accomplish.

Barack Obama's self-satisfied look also reflects his personality.

Obama and Cruz may not have much in common politically, but they do seem to have a certain similarity of character.

Filial respect

Yesterday I raced my son for 200 meters. He beat me, 27.6 to 27.7. Immediately after the race I bent over, my hands on my knees, gasping for breath. He walked up behind me, and, in front of his uncle and sister, put his hands on my hips and made a pumping motion, to symbolically express what he felt he had done to me in the race.

When I told him that I hadn't had time to get in shape for the race, and that with another couple weeks' training I could have gone a second faster, he just shrugged and said, "Dad, if you had gone a 26.7 I would have just gone a 26.6."

This morning I finished the NY Times crossword in under five minutes, a good time for me for the Monday puzzle. Afterwards I jokingly exulted to my son, "I'm a freaking genius!"

His immediate response: "Dad, just 'cause you run like Stephen Hawking, that doesn't make you a genius."

Melba Ketchum, Part II: Sociopath alert

Three posts ago I mentioned that Melba Ketchum, the sasquatch hoaxer, was most likely a sociopath. Another blog, Top Secret Writers, has provided some background on her business dealings.

Ketchum's company, DNA Diagnostics, has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau:

The Bureau provided 16 factors in providing the worst business rating possible, not the least of which included accepting payment from customers without providing sufficient or any DNA results in turn. In most cases, Ketchum failed to respond to the Better Business Bureau’s investigations.

She had also founded a company called Biogen Diagnostics, which is “not in good standing with the State of Texas”.

In 2010, Ketchum had partnered with Robert Schmalzbach and Richard Stubstad in a business called Science Alive, LLC, where they originally noted a “statistical anomaly in mitochondrial DNA results”. Ketchum went on Coast to Coast in 2010 to call for more Bigfoot samples and made claims about Bigfoot which Schmalzback felt was premature. She disagreed with him, formed her new company, and cut Stubstad and Schmalzbach out of the loop. (This of course contradicts Ketchum’s claim that she never “went after” Bigfoot samples).

A record of dishonesty and disloyalty and irresponsibility like that usually spells sociopathy.

I was also struck by Katchum's picture:

You can ignore the dyed hair and bright red lipstick; these are, if garish, not uncommon. She has the "nothing behind the eyes" look that sociopaths are often said to have, though in this case that could be a function of this particular photograph. Another layman's expression for this is, "a smile that doesn't quite reach the eyes;" that seems to be the case here, too.  

But most telling is Katchum's cross. Most people who wear crosses tend to have a small cross on a thin necklace which they usually wear discreetly behind their shirt. Anybody who wears a fairly large cross on a longish gold chain on top of her shirt is generally advertising her Christianity -- her "goodness." 

And there's no one who advertises her "goodness" more than a sociopath. 

On both of these counts -- the blank eyes and the advertising of Christianity -- Ketchum reminds me of Karen Sypher, the sociopath who tried to extort $10 million from basketball coach Rick Pitino:

I wrote about Sypher here, back in 2010. 

(The two women also share the same taste in hair dye and lipstick, although these are, as I said, incidental.) 

Beware of those who brandish their religion like a shield, against any suspicion that they themselves might not be above reproach. 

Melba Ketchum

I got an email from my nephew two days ago asking what I thought about this article about the Sasquatch Genome Project, headed by one Melba Ketchum.

I had read a little about this study, but hadn't followed it all that closely because I'd heard of Melba Ketchum before, and gotten the impression she was a hoaxer. In any case, this latest "study" just confirmed that impression.

There are several suspicious things about this study. Why would NYU say they never received a DNA sample from Ketchum when she says she sent them one? And why would one of the other labs Ketchum cited, the North Louisiana Crime Lab, also deny that they had analyzed a DNA sample?

No serious scientist would lie like that. (And anybody with compelling evidence wouldn't have to lie.)

The group's video (which is embedded in the above-linked article) shows a big hump of "fur" which appears to "breathe" one time. Why wouldn't they videotape it from a different angle, which showed its face, or at least head? And why didn't they get a video of when it woke up, or when its mother came to get it? That would have made for an infinitely more convincing video. Also, if the group was able to take a video of a sleeping juvenile sasquatch, why not attach a tracking collar to it as well?

Ketchum claims that sasquatch is descended from modern human females. But it is hard to believe that a primate so vastly different from humans is fully human.

Note that Ketchum says others don't want to believe her because of what she terms "the Galileo Effect." Evidently, she sees herself as another Galileo. (Sorry, honey.)

Also, her moral posturing is troubling. She says that the fact that others don't believe her is "perhaps for the better," given that others might be tempted to hunt them if convinced of their existence. But if she really feels that way, why is she going to such an effort to prove their existence?

Verdict: a hoaxer. (And probably a sociopath, given her dishonesty and moral posturing.)

Perhaps Ketchum thinks the whole sasquatch phenomenon is a sham and just wants some attention. Or perhaps she believes in its existence and wants credit -- falsely -- for being a pioneer in the field. Either way, she is a hoaxer.

But there have always been hoaxers, and their existence doesn't change my belief in the existence of the creature.

My guess is that my nephew saw through Ketchum, and was merely curious as to how much of a "true believer" I am.

I am a believer, but my belief is based on the ample evidence for its existence, not on wishful thinking.

Talking to dogs

I've always regarded people who speak to animals as if they're humans as particularly idiotic. And those who speak to them as if they're cute little babies are even worse.

My wife is away for a week, so all the dog-walking and feeding duties have fallen on me.

When trying to get Tyke to come inside, or get him away from some particularly alluring smell by the roadside, I've found myself talking to him -- in English, which he doesn't understand -- using an emphatically expressive tone of voice. Somehow it just seems like the most natural thing to do.

I don't talk to him as if he's a cute little baby, though, but more as if he's a recalcitrant three-year-old.

Gotta draw the line somewhere.

An insult, or a compliment?

The NY Post reported today that President Obama said he "would consider" changing the name of the Washington Redskins, given that some consider the name offensive to Native Americans.

The article quoted Obama, and cited a recent poll, but didn't quote a single Native American on the subject. (I've heard that most Native Americans don't particularly like to be called that, and prefer to be known as "Indians." Evidently, "Native American" is an appellation concocted to soothe the sensibilities of white liberals, not Indians.)

Every now and then the suggestion pops up that the Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, and Cleveland Indians change their names as well.

I've never quite understood the reasoning here. Sports teams often name themselves after people -- or creatures -- they admire. Some names can connote a point of local interest (such as the Houston Oilers, or the Houston Rockets, or the Denver Nuggets), but most teams name themselves after a creature with a notable fighting spirit -- a creature they want to emulate. Hence the abundance of teams nationwide named after lions, tigers, wolverines, badgers, timberwolves, bears, falcons, eagles, and jaguars.

Note that there are no teams named after worms, ants, gnats, stink bugs, mice, or cuckoo birds.

I've never heard anybody object to the name "Minnesota Vikings" on the grounds that this is hurtful to the feelings of Scandinavians. Nor have I heard any Irish-Americans wax offended about the Boston Celtics.

If liberals did object to the name "Vikings," I can just imagine what they'd say:

"Vikings were a violent people known for invading neighboring countries and for pillaging and raping. This is a stereotype we want to move away from, and we consider it highly prejudicial and offensive to the many good Americans of Scandinavian descent across the country."

But don't expect to hear this objection; most understand that the name is in fact a compliment to Swedes and Norwegians.

Just as naming your team the Braves, Chiefs, or even Redskins is a compliment to Indians.

"Pulitzer Prize winner: Osama raid 'one big lie'"

Seymour Hersh, who won a Pulitzer for reporting on the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam, says that of everything the Obama administration has said about the raid in Abbotabad, "not one word of it is true."

Could he be right?

And what exactly were the lies? If it does turn out to have been in large part false, an awful lot of people would have had to have been in on it.

It will be interesting to see how the media react to Hersh's accusations. Will they just ignore them the way they've ignored Steven Jiminez's book about Matthew Shepard?

"Media almost totally ignore book claiming Matthew Sheppard murder wasn't a hate crime"

This comes as no surprise. Matthew Sheppard is the media's leading gay martyr, so they don't want his image sullied. Even more than that, they don't want the motive for his murder to be anything other than hatred of gays.

Q: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

A: Not if the media can help it.

I'm all for gay rights, and I'm certainly against violence against gays, but sustaining a big lie like this is just disgustingly dishonest.

FEMEN's latest protest

From yesterday's NewStatesman.com:

Ukrainian feminist activist group Femen have continued their topless protests with an appearance at Nina Ricci’s show at Paris Fashion Week. Jumping onto the runway with ‘Model don’t go to brothel’ and ‘Fashion dictaterror’ painted across their chests, it was slightly unclear what the women were protesting against or why. However, it wouldn’t be the first time that they had merely taken issue with ‘the status quo’ (arguably a refreshing stance.)

The model who they attempted to involve in their protest, Hollie-May Saker, demonstrated a complete lack of amusement and later claimed on Twitter that she had ‘punched’ the ‘stupid bitch’ for getting her ‘saggy tits in my face’. When challenged by a follower and reminded that we are supposedly ‘all on the same side’, Saker replied that ‘If we are all on the same side then tell me why when I was doing my job did she come ruin it and lift up my skirt?’

Although it seems from the footage that Saker’s skirt was more the victim of crossfire than deliberately assaulted by Femen – caught in a topless woman’s wrist as she attempted to raise an arm of solidarity with the model – Saker clearly did not take kindly to having her job disrupted. ‘Have fun scrubbing that shit off your body bitch never been to a brothel in my life’ she tweeted, having already considerably over-used the word ‘bitch’. It’s fair to say that she won’t be signing up at the nearby Femen HQ, which moved last year to Paris, any time soon.

"Model don't go to brothel" doesn't quite make sense. Are they saying it in the sense of, "Models, don't go to brothels!" as a sort of warning? Are they telling young girls that modeling is the preferable alternative to becoming a prostitute? Are they somehow implying that the catwalk leads inexorably to the whorehouse? It's really not very clear. A little punctuation -- like a comma after the first word -- might have helped.

"Fashion dictaterror" is even less clear. Are they saying that the concept of fashion terrorizes models, and maybe females in general? Or are they saying that fashionable models tend to be a bit tyrannical? (That's been my experience, to be honest.)

I looked up "dictaterror," but alas, there is no such word. Which means, I guess, that it means whatever you want it to. Perhaps it means, "Please have sex with me." (One interpretation is as good as another.)

You have to wonder exactly what the thinking is behind this group. They seem a little confused.

Maybe they're frustrated models themselves, angry because they had to accept the second rate modeling assignment of protesting for FEMEN. They'd undoubtedly prefer to be making the bigger bucks that come with actually modeling Nina Ricci designs; but if they can't, they'll disrupt those who do.

Or maybe it's all just performance art -- a genre where making sense is not a priority. If that's the case, then their act is geared purely towards garnering attention, which is what most of modern art is about.

But, even though their message is garbled, they do seem to be Leftists. So at least we know they're Good People.

Still, one has to wonder who is behind them. Well, that mystery has evidently been solved.

From yesterday's Independent:

Femen recently came under controversy after 28-year-old male Victor Svyatskiy was 'outed' as the mastermind behind the group by Australian film maker Kitty Green. Ms Green alleges Mr Svyatskiy hand-picked the most attractive women "because the prettiest girls sell papers."

Click on that link ("controversy") and you'll find that Victor Svyatski both founded and controls the group. Ms. Green said that he "was quite horrible with the girls. He would scream at them and call them bitches." (Dictaterror?)

But the funniest, most ironic thing, is what Svyatski himself says about the women he hires: "These girls are weak. They don't have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. Instead, they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”

It's certainly an interesting take from the head of a purportedly feminist group.

Another excerpt from the Independent article:

One of the Femen campaigners talks of the relationship between the women and the movement’s founder as being akin to “Stockholm syndrome”, in which hostages feel sympathy for their captors.

“We are psychologically dependent on him and even if we know and understand that we could do this by ourselves without his help, it’s psychological dependence,” she says.

When asked by Ms. Green if his motivation was “to get girls,” Svyatski replied, “Perhaps yes, somewhere in my deep subconscious."

My guess is that you don't really have to go that deep. And that what Svyatski is operating is essentially a brothel for himself.

Models, don't go to brothels!

Sociopath liberation

Given the benefits which accrue to those who cry discrimination, and given the escalating victimization sweepstakes which have ensued, it's a little surprising that more groups with well-defined mental maladies haven't applied for special victim status yet.

A few have. People with Aspergers have their advocates; people with Down Syndrome have their supporters as well. And the general push for civil liberties has resulted in a lot of schizophrenics ending up homeless on the streets.

But why haven't sociopaths agitated for special protected status yet?

If they do, perhaps their organizational manifesto could read something like this:

We are the real victims.

We are discriminated against for who we are, despite the fact that we have no choice but to be as we are. Is it our fault that we were abused as children, or didn't have a loving parent to bond with?

Is it our fault that we may have suffered frontal lobe damage? Do you blame the victims of auto accidents for the damage they undergo?

We deserve your sympathy, not your hatred.

Others criticize us, prosecute us, and hound us to the ends of the earth. We may murder at a higher rate, but we also get murdered more than any other group.

We are only 3% of the population, but we are at least 30% of those in prisons. And we are over 60% of those on Death Row. This is discrimination, pure and simple.

As the victims of oppression, we have a few demands. First, we no longer want to be known as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths." Those words have acquired too many negative connotations over the years. (Is it any wonder most of us feel compelled to stay in the closet?) Those terms should simply be banished, like all the other pejoratives which have been used to marginalize other oppressed groups. From now on, we simply want to be known as the "conventional morality-free."

We need to move beyond the old stereotypes: 

Don't call us manipulative; call us socially effective. (We make the best salesmen.)

Don't say we have low impulse control; just say we're spontaneous. (Why be a stick in the mud?)

Don't despise our dishonesty; admire out creativity. (We are artists.)

Don't call us glib; just bask in our charm. (We didn't even have to go to charm school; with us, it comes naturally.)

Don't think of us as shameless; think of us as living in the moment. (Isn't that what the poets tell us to do?)

Don't dwell on how easily we get bored; marvel at how we are never boring. (There is no group more exciting than us.)

We are many, and we are strong:

We aren't just Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. In fact, we no longer want to be associated with them. We are political leaders, like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. We are business leaders, like Bernie Madoff and Steve Jobs. We are athletic heroes, like Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones. We are Frank Abagnale, the charming hero of Catch Me if you Can.

We are the Navy Seals who fell asleep in the helicopter ride on the way to get Osama bin Laden. We are the singers who never get stage fright. We are the clutch performers who never get nervous and choke. Don't hate us for our strengths (because we aren't weaklings like the rest of you).

We are the few (roughly, 2-3%). We are the proud (very proud).

We are the conventional morality-free.

And we no longer want to be stigmatized.

We want, instead, to be admired (lionized, actually).

Justice is blind; now so is law enforcement

Back in May, I linked a Wall Street Journal article which talked about a new trend: everyone, no matter how old, must be carded before drinking, since otherwise it's "discrimination" against younger people.

I had assumed that this silly trend died as quickly as it had appeared.

Not so.

Last weekend my wife ran a half marathon up in Rhode Island. They had set up a large tent at the finish where all the runners could gather for a post-race beer. My wife finished the race, and went to the tent, but was not allowed a beer because she didn't have a proper ID with her.

My wife is 57. While she looks good for her age, nobody would mistake her for a teenager.

The wonderful thing about political correctness is that it gives common sense a nice vacation. When political correctness takes over, common sense goes jetting off to some place like Fiji, where it's not even reachable by phone.

Carding 57-year-olds is the culmination of a non-discriminatory ethos which deems it evil to notice any human differences.

Another example might be how those TSA agents at the airports pay as much attention to little old ladies as they do to me.

Check out my picture on the right. I look vaguely like a guy who'd like to blow up a jet in order to get his 72 virgins. Okay, I admit it, I'm getting a little old for the virgins. But I still look kind of like I might have a soft spot for al Qaeda.

So please, frisk me -- and others who look like me. I'd far rather be the victim of racial profiling than the victim of a terrorist.

Let me put it this way: I'd prefer having to undergo a cavity search by a fat, ugly, old gay guy with warts on his fingers than having to sit on an airplane for several hours wondering when the bomb is going to detonate.

We need to send political correctness to Fiji, and invite common sense back home -- without asking it for an ID proving it's 21.

What's the diff?

One plastic surgery which seems to produce an inordinate percentage of bad results among celebrities is lip plumping:

Here's Donatella Versace, before and after:

And Lisa Rinna:

And Janice Dickinson:

The Mursi and Surma women of Ethiopia use lip plates for ornamentation and also to indicate social status:

The Suya men of Brazil sometimes wear lip plates as well, as a sign of their entrance into manhood:

The styles vary slightly from culture to culture, but one thing all these looks have in common is that none invite kisses.

Overconfidence

One question you used to hear debated a lot is, should parents tell children their IQ's? The arguments against basically boiled down to: if the number is low, the child's ambitions and confidence might be limited, and if it's high, the child might be tempted to coast.

My IQ tested well above average as a kid, and I was told my score. I honestly don't know whether that was a good thing. I suspect it has caused me to coast at times, since I never felt a need to prove myself academically. On the other hand, it has given me a lot of intellectual confidence -- probably much of it misplaced.

One of the results of my confidence is that I don't mind harboring -- and expressing -- minority opinions. Most people are reluctant to express offbeat opinions for fear that people think them somehow off-kilter.

My attitude is, so what? Let them go ahead and think I'm crazy. I don't really care, since I know I'm not. I also know I'm smarter than the people who think I'm crazy, so I care even less.

The confidence is probably good, but going through life with people thinking me odd has probably not been beneficial. (Not that I care enough to change.)

I don't know how many people have snickered at me after I've made the case for sasquatch. I do know how little I care.

I also don't mind expressing politically unpopular opinions. Go ahead and call me thoroughly disgusting, as the commenter above did; I know I'm right.

My confidence in my intelligence is pretty much unshakable. You can be right about five things in a row, and I can be wrong about all five, but I still know I'm smarter than you. (If that sounds incredibly obnoxious, I can't argue.)

You can be a world-renowned expert in some field that I know nothing about it. But I'll still feel I have a more well-rounded intelligence.

You can be more quick-witted than me. But that's okay, because I know that given the time I could come up with an even better line.

I can say the stupidest things, things I realize are stupid as soon as they leave my mouth, and write them off as temporary aberrations, not indicative of my intelligence. I can say stuff where even I am put off by my own stupidity or egotism (this post is not a bad example); so I can only imagine how others react. Yet it will not shake my belief in my own intelligence.

All of this makes me sound awfully narcissistic, but I actually don't have the other hallmarks of narcissism. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. And I know there are all sorts of things I positively suck at, and readily admit to those. (Type "Confessions of a beta male" into the search box of this blog and read about my low self-image.)

It's just my intelligence I'm so confident -- and quite possibly overconfident -- about. Is that good, or bad?

I honestly don't know.

(In the case of the commenter quoted above, however, I do have an opinion: it's neither good nor bad, since she's simply lying.)

Rumor mongering

The NY Post said today that Gennifer Flowers is claiming Bill Clinton told her that Hillary is bisexual.

The relevant quote from Ms. Flowers: "He said that Hillary had eaten more pussy than he had."

I tend to believe Flowers. I've heard that rumor elsewhere, too, including from a guy I know whose sister -- who adored HIllary -- worked at the State Department and said that there was no question she's a lesbian.

I wonder if this will become general knowledge by the time of the 2016 election.

If it is true, it would lend credence to the theory that Huma Abedin, Hillary's closest aide, is probably her lesbian lover. And if that is true, that gives credence to the theory that Huma's marriage to Anthony Weiner was merely one of political convenience. The marriage gave Weiner some powerful Democratic connections, and it gave Huma -- as well as HIllary -- some cover.

If all these thing are true -- and I suspect they are -- it also gave both Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner good reason to stray. Anyone married to a lesbian can hardly be blamed for seeking sexual solace elsewhere.

The other rumor making the rounds recently is that Matthew Sheppard was not in fact murdered because he was gay by two homophobic men. According to author Stephen Jiminez, whose book is due out next week, the two men who killed him, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, used the "gay panic" narrative at their trial since they felt it would be their strongest defense. But in fact, McKinney himself had a sexual relationship with Sheppard, and both he and Sheppard dealt -- as well as used -- methamphetamines.

If this is true -- and I have no idea whether it is -- it would not only sully the image of the gay movement's number one martyr, it would bring into question his very martyrdom.

What were they thinking, Part II

More guesses as to the designers' thoughts as they came up with their unique outfits for NY's 2013 Fashion Week:

(Malan Breton): "We need to create an updated Little Lord Fauntleroy look. You know, for the schoolboy who enjoys receiving wedgies."

 (Mark and Estel): "The perfect outfit for women who want to appear more pear-shaped."

(Mathieu Mirano): "When I was a kid, I used to collect Barbie dolls. I had the Barbie Mermaid doll, and the Barbie Cowgirl doll, the Barbie Executive doll, and all the rest. But the one I always really wanted was the Barbie Prostitute doll with the see-through nightie."

(Naeem Khan): "Hey, I hear everyone is doing sheer this year. Let's outdo them by combining it with 40's glamour! Something like Bette Davis would have worn if she'd completely lost her mind."

(Nicholas K): "As long as everyone else is doing sheer, let's do a Flirty Pocohontas look."

(Ralph Rucci): "I wonder why the Fashion Week people are encouraging us all to feature at least one sheer outfit this year. Do they really think it's going to raise interest? Let's face it, guys who are interested in fashion really aren't all that interested in women's boobies."

(Ralph Lauren): "Let's bring back the Swinging 60's. Miniskirts, knee high boots, oversized sunglasses, the whole thing. You know, Carnaby Street. I wonder...are there any models who can still go-go dance?"

(Ricardo Seto): "I want to create a look for the guy who's tough. I mean, really tough. I'm talking, like almost as tough as those Jets and Sharks in West Side Story."

(The Art Institute of New York City): "Here's how we make a splash: we think of the most narcissistic, showoffy, shameless woman we know. Then we come up with an outfit that even she wouldn't wear."

(Supima): "This is actually a gift to husbands with acquisitive wives who like to attend auctions. No more arm raising for you, you spendthrift bitch! We'll disguise its true purpose by calling it the I Poked My Head Through the Top of the Tent look."

(Trina Turk): "You know what hasn't been done yet? The Delegate to the UN from the Poor African Country look. We just have to find the right model, shave her head, and then put some barbaric earrings on her."

(Zang Toi): "We need an outfit for the Prince Charming who'd really rather be a princess."

(Y-3): "Let's create a fashion that's the sartorial equivalent of that song A Boy Named Sue. Any schoolboy wearing this has to either get tough or die."