If fashion writers covered the crime beat

As a follow up to the post about how history would read if it were recorded by fashionistas, a few examples of what they might do with the crime beat:

Nothing says trustworthy like a tweed jacket, and Ted knows how to wear one with panache! The tie, the white shirt, and the jacket with structured shoulders all exude a staid respectability. You can tell Ted is a deep thinker from his serious expression, as he sadly reflects on man's inhumanity to man. Or  women. And look at that handsome face: our Ted must be a real lady-killer!

Only a kindhearted soul will set aside his dignity to cheer others up! In the wonderful tradition of Patch Adams, John has made it his life's work to befriend young boys who didn't necessarily have a strong father figure around. The red, white, and blue makeup bespeak a certain patriotism, which is only fitting when you consider that his namesake is John Wayne. Of course, when the occasion calls for it, Mr. Gacy can also dress quite respectably:

Here's John with none other than First Lady Rosalynn Carter herself. That crimson sport jacket with lapel buttons shows that this is a man who will one day make his mark and become famous!

Look at those angelic baby blues: don't you just want to eat Jeffrey up? Jeffrey is the epitome of hipster chic with three days growth and an alternating blue and yellow striped shirt with spread collar. Is that dreamy expression because he's thinking of all the finer things in life that a sophisticated man has a taste for?

Some men love football, some love basketball, and some love the Olympics. Andrei is obviously one of the latter, and he's not ashamed to wear his heart on his sleeve! That shaved head shows that he's ready for action himself -- Mr. Chikatilo is one competitor with a killer instinct!

Just because you're 6'9" and 300 pounds doesn't mean you have to get your fashion sense from the Big 'n Tall stores. Edmund has obviously modeled his look after the Beatles from their Sgt. Pepper phase:

When you're as imposing as Mr. Kemper, all the more reason to project peace and love in order to gain people's trust -- especially when you offer them a ride. Smart move, Edmund -- your mother and grandparents must be proud!

Who's that glamorous man behind those aviator sunglasses? A movie star? No -- it's Richard, looking stylish with his Mick Jagger do and his casual sport jacket! Maybe those specs are for sensitivity to the light -- some people are simply night owls! All we know is, with that sexy look, Mr. Ramirez must have a devil of a time with women stalking him all over Tinseltown!

Son of a gun! David certainly doesn't dog it when it comes to fashionable collars! New York City is the world's capital of fashion, and David loves to roam it all -- even the outer boroughs! Note that David is wearing cotton -- like any true animal-lover, not only does he disapprove of wearing fur, he'll even let animals have their way! In fact, David has such a highly developed moral sense he even disapproves of public displays of affection!

Richard looks quite stylish in a patterned tweed jacket with matching tie. The jacket may be a tad large, but the impression of a boy wearing his father's clothing seems only appropriate once you've looked into those innocent blue eyes. Richard is definitely a nice boy, not the type to nurse a grudge.

Who says that fashionistas have a stranglehold on style?! Even a door to door salesman like Albert wants to look good -- because you never get a second chance to make a first impression! Albert is just breathtakingly dashing!

Most people grow more fashionable as they age, but some move beyond fashion. At 14, Charlie was quite the snappy dresser. But eventually, as you can tell from his peacefully ethereal look below, he realized that earthly possessions were no longer important to him:

But even though he's moved beyond fashion, he still pays attention to his grooming, never letting his locks go helter skelter. Why, with those soft, luxuriant tresses, he could model for Clairol! How many guys can claim to be both a family man and a style icon?

Filial respect, Part VII

We were watching Bone Tomahawk, a gritty Western/horror movie the other night. Towards the end of the movie there's a brutal scene where the "Troglodytes," a renegade cannibal Indian tribe, take one of their captives, strip him, hold him upside down, pull his legs apart, and then one of them, using an oversize tomahawk, cleaves him, bisecting him.

The scene happens at about 10:20 on this Youtube video, but I don't recommend watching it.

As soon as the scene was over, my son said, "Look Dad, there's the prostate surgery team from Sloan Kettering."

Snow!

A friend, Dave Moriarty, just pointed out that most of the articles which have come out in the last couple days about the snowstorm which is about to hit the East Coast are treating us as if we've never seen snow before.

He's right. These articles have all been wonderfully informative:

The snow will make travel difficult. Flights will be cancelled. Some businesses will be shut down on Saturday. In the meantime, snow shovels are selling briskly. If you need to stock up on food, do so now.

You don't say.

Cancer

I had a physical in August in which I got a PSA score of 5.5, a little outside the safe range. The second test in November came back at 5.6, so I scheduled a prostate biopsy on January 5th.

I had planned to write a funny post about the nature of the biopsy. Beforehand, I did ask the physician's assistant I made the appointment with, "There's nothing undignified about this procedure, is there?" (She didn't realize I was kidding.)

I had intended to ask the doctor, once the ultrasonic/needle-injecting wand was up my butt, "Say, I hope you don't think me self-indulgent, but does this thing have a vibrate function?" Once actually in that situation, though, I somehow forgot to ask.

On January 8th, I was told I have prostate cancer. Since then, I seem to have lost my sense of humor about it.

The odds are on my side, however. If it's caught early, as mine seems to have been, the survival rates are 99% five years out. It's a slow-growing and relatively easily treatable form of cancer. (Mine is intermediate in terms of aggression.)

My cancer doesn't seem to have spread yet, though I shouldn't waste any more time in dealing with it. I'm getting a second opinion Thursday at Sloan Kettering, and after that I have to make a decision about the course of treatment. At the moment I'm leaning towards radiation, which may have fewer side effects.

It's those potential side effects I'm mostly worried about: impotence, and even incontinence.

(My sex life has always been a tawdry, sporadic thing. But, it was the only one I had, and I would miss it.)

All of this has taken me by surprise. I feel fine physically, and am otherwise healthy. And, I'm in good shape --

(Boasting alert….)

-- The last week of December was a sort of high water mark athletically. On December 24th, an abnormally warm day in the Northeast, I did a 200 meter run in 27.9. On December 26th I did a one arm clean and jerk with a 75 pound dumbbell. And on December 30th I swam a 100 yard butterfly from a pushoff in 1:01.

I challenge any younger guy to hit all three of those marks in the space of one week. (The clean and jerk should be weight-adjusted; I weigh 160.)

I'm lucky to have people who are helping. My brother will have accompanied me to both consultations. My son has made a heroic -- though losing -- effort to cheer me up.

There are a few people who hate read this blog, and I hate to give them the satisfaction of knowing I have cancer. But, I owe the rest of you an explanation for why I won't be blogging as much while I deal with this. I'll continue to post your comments, but won't be as assiduous in responding to them. Don't take it personally.

Speaking of "personally," that is the direction the cancer seems to have taken my thoughts. So far, I'm thinking all the usual cliched thoughts. But if I come up with anything original, I'll let you know. In any case, be forewarned, this blog may be about to get embarrassing.

Then again, some people would say it's always been embarrassing.

History test

A month ago, when I wrote, If history were recorded by fashion writers, I was a little afraid that people wouldn't get all the semi-hidden references. A couple days ago I asked an Ivy-eduated guy if he'd gotten them all, and it turned out he'd only gotten a few of them.

If you haven't read the post, please do so. Then see how many of the following references you recognized.




Scroll down.




Scroll down.




Attila the Hun:
"The scourge of everyone who finds grunge acceptable" -- Attila was known as "the Scourge of God."

Vlad III of Wallachia (popularly known as Vlad the Impaler):
"The prince's piercing gaze….If fashion were a car race, Vlad would be sitting in the pole position!" -- Vlad was known to kill people by sitting them atop a long pointed stake placed in their anus which would gradually sink into their intestines.

"Count Dracula wouldn't be caught dead in anything less!" The vampire Dracula was said to have been based on Vlad.

Francisco Pizarro:
"Francisco is one macho peach, you can't deny that!" -- a reference to Machu Picchu, the most famous site of the Incas. (This one was a little forced, I admit.)

Benito Mussolini:
"The black shirt reflects Benito's point of view perfectly." -- Mussolini's squads of goons were known as the "Blackshirts."

"The hands of his German Leica sweep around their axis reliably" -- a reference to the Axis powers.

Adolf Hitler:
"Adolf's final solution was pure genius" -- You probably know what Hitler's "final solution" was.

Mao Tse-Tung:
"Political power may come from the barrel of a gun" -- from a well known Mao saying.

The "long march" was what his troops engaged in during their successful revolution.

Manuel Noriega:
Noriega actually did help both Escobar and Castro, and was said to have homosexually sodomized his prisoners during torture.

Idi Amin:
"One does not earn that kind of hardware by cannibalizing others' heroism." -- Amin was widely thought to have eaten some of his enemies.

Muammar Khaddafi:
"Woe to the man who does not let that locker be!" -- a reference to Lockerbie, Scotland, where Libyan terrorists, on Khaddafi's orders, took down a passenger jet.

If you spotted all the references, you get an A in History.

Sicario

Watched Sicario (out on pay-per-view now) two nights ago, and my son and I liked it so much we watched it again last night. It's about an interagency force tasked with disrupting the Mexican drug cartels.

The soundtrack isn't really music, it's more just background noise designed to amplify the intensity of the movie. But it's still one of the greatest soundtracks I've ever heard.

The casting was near perfect. virtually every role was filled by someone who made you think, ah, that person is perfect for that role. The only possible false note was Emily Blunt as the nominal protagonist, a Phoenix FBI agent. But, it always helps to have a beautiful woman onscreen:

Blunt seems to be one of the few women who looks better without makeup (above) than with (shown below, at the Cannes premiere for the film):

I have no idea whether US law enforcement does the types of things they're shown doing; but it all seems plausible. And it certainly captured the destruction wrought by the cartels in Juarez.

As my son pointed out afterward, "This isn't exactly a let's-throw-open-the-borders movie." (He also said the military characters seemed realistic.)

Definitely worth watching.

Bill Clinton as campaign fodder

When Hillary recently accused Trump of being sexist for some of his comments, including his offhand remark that she had gotten "schlonged" in the 2008 Presidential primary, the issue then came up of whether she should be held accountable for any of her husband's misbehavior.

The answer is pretty obviously, of course not -- which is why the media phrased it that way. You could say she shouldn't have stayed married to a known abuser and probable rapist. But marriages endure and dissolve for all sorts of mysterious reasons that sometimes even the spouses themselves don't fully understand. And, really, it's unfair to criticize anyone for staying married.

But one thing Hillary is definitely responsible for is her own actions when it came to those women. Especially in light of her statement in September: "Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you.

Clinton also stated the need for "increased prevention effort" to discourage sexual predators.

Those were not exactly her reactions to her hubby's various "bimbo eruptions," as they were called by Bill Clinton's handlers.

When Gennifer Flowers claimed to have had an affair with Bill Clinton in 1992, Hillary disparaged her as "trailer trash."

When Juanita Broaddrick said that Bill Clinton had raped her, Hillary implicitly threatened her and told her to keep quiet.

And Hillary famously dismissed Monica Lewinsky as a "narcissistic loony tune."

(Not a bad description of herself.)

So, no, Hillary shouldn't be held responsible for her husband's actions. Only her own.

Moderate testosterone and trust

While looking at pictures of Barack Obama for the previous post, it occurred to me how much he has benefitted by not being an overly masculine guy. Because he came across nonthreatening, he was a lot more palatable to the white electorate. He had a big smile, could speak the King's English, and was the type of black man whites are generally comfortable with.

In the immortal words of Harry Reid, Obama had Presidential potential because he was a "light-skinned black with no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Or, as Joe Biden said in 2007 about Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

Key to both of those impressions was that Obama wasn't physically intimidating. He didn't look in any way like a cartoon style bully. And so people were at ease with him, and thus more inclined to trust him.

Another guy who must have benefitted from that effect is Martin Shkreli. If you hadn't known anything about him, but were introduced to him a few years ago --

-- you'd probably have been positively predisposed toward him, simply because he's not in any way a threatening physical presence. And if you were told that he was a hedge fund manager, you'd likely have thought, "Ah, boy genius!" 

But a lack of male hormones doesn't necessarily equal honesty, or decency. In fact, there's no correlation at all. Shkreli, as we now know, is merely a con man. 

And, frankly, so is the other guy.

Angela

It's rare you see a country's leader go through the kind of 180 degree shift in image that Angela Merkel seems to have undergone.

A year ago, when she was dealing with the Greek debt crisis, she appeared to be a flinty-eyed realist who saw right through Greece's attempts to worm out of responsibility for years of financial profligacy. She was a hard bargainer who insisted until the end that Greece's government put in place a program of austerity -- or else.

Now she looks like a patsy. It's almost as if in the intervening year, someone kidnapped her and brainwashed her, stuffing her head with unrealistic liberal ideals. Now, after the New Year's Eve wilding party by her new guests, she looks like a woman who's just been molested: glassy-eyed, in shock, and unsure about what just happened.

(Not unlike one of those women who were just attacked in Cologne.)

Unfortunately for Angela, it's the latter image that's going to stick.

College kids

A friend, Dave Moriarty, sent The Ten Most Ridiculous College Protests of 2015 to me yesterday. 

I hadn't even heard of some of those causes.

But it occurred to me, a big part of the problem is the way the media takes them seriously. Young people have always felt the need to do crazy stuff to blow off steam. Once it was panty raids and seeing how many students could fit inside a Volkswagen Beetle. 

A little later it was protesting the Viet Nam War, then, streaking. 

Now it's all the silly stuff described in the article linked above (plus a lot of racial tension which the author carefully sidestepped). 

But really, some of this should be written off to hormones and youthful stupidity. As in, you know, kids will be kids.

Not all of it, though. Some of the more recent protests -- not the ones listed above -- have taken on a more sinister hue, setting students off against each other on the basis of race. 

Different personalities

In the previous post I mentioned how Austin Shifflett was unrecognizable after he lost all that weight. It appears to go deeper than that: he looks as if he has a different personality in each of the shots:

But what if the three photos actually were of three different people? What would each be like?

The guy in the center looks like a Bubba, a friendly, somewhat slobbish type who'll wrap his arm around you in a friendly gesture (he won't feel awkward about it, but you will). He likes to drink beer and watch football. He actually played football his freshman year, but decided not to go out his sophomore year because he didn't like having to do the wind sprints. He's relaxed, outgoing, and would probably like both the fellow in the left and the one on the right.

The guy on the left looks like the type who'd run for Class President. He's a future businessman, an aggressive go-getter who'll give you a hearty handshake and an insincere smile. He likes to brag about his conquests to his buddies. He has nothing but contempt for the "lardass" and "faggot" (his words) in the other pictures.

The guy on the right is a bit of a fashionista (who else would wear a scarf and semi-matching hat indoors?) He despises the guy on the left, but doesn't say anything because he's afraid of him. He likes the fellow in the center, who seems to accept him for who he is, and has even encouraged him to try to lose weight so he can wear more stylish clothes.

Okay, I've just indulged in a lot of obvious cliches. And I'm obviously not suggesting that there's any truth to these stereotypes, at least as far as Austin is concerned. But I don't think I'd be alone in imputing those personality types to each physique.

What's amazing, of course, is that he looks as if he has a different personality in each picture, even though it can't possibly be true.

But it would be interesting to find out if Austin Shifflett's personality has actually changed at all since his physical transformation. You occasionally hear about the "pretty girl personality" (expects the world on a silver platter, thinks she's more interesting than she is). You never hear of the "handsome boy personality." But it's probably just as real.

Don't get fat

Articles about people who've lost large amounts of weight are a staple on the internet, and I often find myself clicking on them out of curiosity. It's not that I want to see how different their bodies look, since that's a given. I'm more interested to see how different their faces look afterward.

Sometimes their faces don't change that much, but sometimes they look like completely different people. A couple of days ago I stumbled across this article, which featured two people, one of whom, Austin Shifflett, was unrecognizable after his weight loss:

At first I thought they'd made a mistake; the guy on the right seems to have a different nose and mouth, and darker eyebrows. But then I Google-Imaged Austin Shifflet and came across this triptych, which made it apparent it hadn't been a mistake:

In both sets of pictures, he looks like a different person on the right. I was also struck by the fact that Shifflett somehow looks a little gay after the weight loss, but that may be partially the effect of his Zoolander-style pose in those shots.

In any case, Austin was one of the lucky ones: he looked good afterwards, as opposed to looking like a former fatty with saggy skin. The fact that he'd lost the weight while still young undoubtedly helped.

I've said this before, but I think at least 75% of women would be attractive if they were exactly the right weight. Bone structure is a wonderful thing, always better apparent than not. The problem is, very few women -- or men -- hit the appropriate target.

There have certainly been plenty of instances of people going in the other direction. Roberto Duran, the great boxer, went from looking like this --

-- to this:

Granted, we all get old, and granted, our metabolisms slow down as we age. But it seems sort of a shame with Duran; he had a sort of feral beauty when young, and now he's almost unrecognizable.

Duran was famous for his toughness and untamed ferocity in the ring. One of my favorite Duran stories happened after he beat Davey Moore for the junior middleweight title in 1983 in a bruising, bloody battle of attrition. After the fight, instead of taking a shower and changing -- the way a civilized human would -- he simply threw his clothes on over his boxing trunks and went out into the night to celebrate with his friends.

That tends not to be the type of guy who spends the latter half of his life obsessively counting calories. And, it might only diminish Duran's legend if he had.

Still, it seems unfortunate, as it always does when someone loses his or her looks. Better to go in Austin's direction.

Muhammad Ali, segregationist

In all the hoopla over Muhammad Ali's "statement" about Islam a couple weeks ago, none of the major newspapers which celebrated his defense of Islam thought to remember what Ali used to say about race mixing: he was against it.

Take a look at this clip from an interview he gave on British TV in 1971.

Here are a few quotes from that interview:

"I'm sure no intelligent white person watching this show, no intelligent white man in his or her right white mind, want black boys and black girls marrying their white sons and daughters, and in return, introducing' their grandchildren as half-brown, kinky-haired black people."

When the white host interjected that he wouldn't mind, Ali continued, "Well you don't have it, you say you do, but you don't have it, you really ain't gonna have it, you on your show, you gotta say that."

When the host said, again, that they were the same, Ali said, "Oh, we're different, you know we're different…..No, not society, God made us different…..Listen, bluebirds fly with bluebirds, red birds gonna be with red birds. Listen, listen, tell me when I'm wrong. Pigeons want to be with pigeons…..I don't see no black and white couples in England or America, walkin' around proud, holdin' their children."

"Life's too short for me to be catchin' hell for something like that. Again, I'd rather be with my own, have a beautiful daughter, a beautiful wife, they look like me, we all happy, and I don't have no trouble.  Now I ain't that much in love with no woman to go through all that hell, ain't no woman that good."

When the host said that he thought Ali's attitude was sad, Ali replied, "It ain't sad that I want my child to look like me, every intelligent person wants his child to look like him. I'm sad because I want to blot out my race and lose my beautiful identity?"

This, by the way, is the same Muhammad Ali who called Sonny Liston a "big black ugly bear" and Joe Frazier 'King Kong." Of course, he also once said that all white men are the devil.

But one stance Ali never wavered on was racial separatism. Somehow George Wallace and Lester Maddox have ended up demonized ("devil-ized?") for that view, while Ali remains a liberal icon. And neither Wallace nor Maddox ever went so far as to say that all black men are the devil. Gee….you'd almost think there was a double standard at work here.

In any case, while the newspapers were so triumphantly quoting Ali's defense of Islam -- words he almost certainly never said -- it would have been nice, for the sake of balance, if they had quoted some words which he actually did say.

But since those quotes don't fit with the media's narrative, they will remain buried.

BBC productions

Netflix doesn't have a great selection of movies; most are "B" productions with low ratings from Rottentomatoes.

What makes Netflix worthwhile are its TV shows.

And its best TV shows are generally the BBC productions. The best of those may be Broadchurch, The Fall, and Luther.

Broadchurch features a great ensemble of "real" actors (meaning, none look like movie stars) acting exactly as real people would if a young boy had been found murdered in their midst.

The Fall is about the search for a serial killer in Belfast. As I mentioned this past January, it may feature more beautiful women per reel than any show since the original 1967 Casino Royale. It's an excellent drama, and it also seems to have that indefinable quality known as "cool."

Idris Elba is appealing as the star of Luther, a London detective who must cope with a wayward wife, a corrupt colleague, and various criminals. He's got issues himself, but the various misfits he must deal with make him seem well-adjusted by comparison.

The Killing is also great, even though it's an American (AMC) show. It takes a few episodes to warm up to, but once you're into it, you'll be hooked. As an example of how well done it is: one of the two main characters, a detective, is both a wigger and a drug addict, but by the end of the show you'll see him as both likable and heroic -- as hard as that may be to believe.

I don't think you'll regret watching any of these series.

If I had to sum up the difference between the BBC shows and the typical American TV show (The Killing excepted), it's this: the British writers create their characters as real people, whereas Americans create their characters act as they think TV characters are supposed to be. 

One cause the SJW's need to take up

It's hard to argue with the original civil rights causes. A government shouldn't mandate segregation and exclusion. Women shouldn't have their opportunities limited just because they're women. And it's unfair to ask gays to stay in the closet.

Most fair-minded people would agree that people ought not be penalized for something they have no control over -- but that they shouldn't be rewarded for those things, either.

But some of the original causes have since been turned on their heads: minorities and feminists now demand discrimination in their favor.

Given the direction that many of these original liberation movements have taken, one movement seems conspicuous by its absence: liberation for the low-IQed.

Prejudices of all sorts are now analyzed and even invented by social justice warriors. Yet nobody ever seems to complain about prejudice against the dumb. To be honest, it's what some of these other movements have sort of morphed into anyway. So why not call it what it is?

In an era in which tests themselves are deemed "discriminatory," it's high time someone took up this cause.

Are dumb people not human too? Being dumb does not make you a bad person. Should they not have civil rights? Why should dumb people be excluded from the better colleges? Why should they not have a chance at the highest-paying jobs?

Why should this be the disability that dare not speak its name?

Just think of the great slogans that they could (mindlessly) chant:

"We're dumb, but we're not scum!" (To the lower-IQed, rhymes seems to imbue more meaning and truth to whatever they're saying.)

"'Dumb' is a four letter word!" (Or, perhaps, more in character, "'Stupid' is a four letter word!")

"America was built on the backs of dumb people!"

"Abolish intelligencism!"

"Stupid pride!"

A dumb person could say, with that vague but unmistakable sense of hysterical victimhood/entitlement, "I am a person of stupidity."

In fact, instead of trying to win arguments by logic, they could simply fall back on, "You're an intelligencist!" in the same way in which liberals try to end arguments by calling names.

There's really no argument against that. 

Stupidity, unnatural beauty, natural beauty, and wisdom

By now you've undoubtedly heard of the mix-up at the Miss Universe contest, when emcee Steve Harvey mistakenly announced that Miss Colombia was the winner over Miss Philippines.

It was actually sorta funny -- if you have a twisted sense of humor.

The funniest thing may have been Steve Harvey's subsequent Tweet:

(To the best of my knowledge, that Ivy League school does not hold a beauty contest. "Philippians" is a New Testament epistle, not a country in Asia. And while Harvey made both an honest mistake and a terrible one, was it really "terribly honest" as well?)

This sends a clear message to all young students: hit those geography books, study your syntax, and you, too, might become successful enough to announce the Miss Universe contest.

You can't really be angry at Harvey, though. It was an honest mistake, he owned up to it, and he obviously felt bad about it afterwards.

What I was really struck by when I first saw a clip of the incident was how unnatural Miss Colombia looked:

She seems to have had a lot of work done. Those big lips simply don't go with that narrow nose, which makes it appear as if at least one, and probably both, were surgically altered. Her cheeks look unnaturally full, as if she's had implants. Her eyebrows are obviously painted on. And she's wearing heavy makeup.

The overall effect is, one of the less wholesome showgirls in a Vegas topless revue.

Speaking of which, her skinny arms contrast sharply with her ample breasts, which indicate that those may have been enhanced as well:

It would have been more in keeping with the rest of her look to get double-D's rather than small C's, though.

Brazil, Venezuela, and Colombia have reportedly all gone plastic surgery-crazy in recent years. And a high percentage of Brazilian athletes seem to be on steroids these days. When those things are just part of the culture, it's a little harder to blame people who simply go along.

But should a contest which essentially celebrates young beauty really be encouraging that much artifice?

(The pageant now sparks the same feeling you get when you see a picture of the Mr. Universe contestants: wow, that's a lot of store-bought enhancement.)

The third place finisher, Olivia Thomas, Miss USA, has a much more natural look:

There's real hair in those eyebrows, and her face is in balance. (Which is to damn her with faint praise: she's stunningly beautiful.)

Anyway, back to the mix-up. Donald Trump, who sold the contest six months ago, at first said that this would never have happened when he owned the contest. That's a little ridiculous, as human error is always a possibility whenever humans are involved.

But then he proposed that the Miss Universe title be awarded jointly this year, which actually isn't a bad suggestion. Miss Colombia may not deserve the title based on her natural beauty, but she does deserve something as recompense for her humiliation.

Ah, the wisdom of Solomon.

Just what we'd want in a President.

And if there is zero chance that any errors would ever happen on his watch, all the better.

A sociopath's ability to perform

The AP recently ran an article titled, "Actor decapitated neighbor, performed in musical soon after."

The relevant excerpts: 

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A Southern California man who killed two people and dismembered one in a scheme to steal money and cover his tracks was convicted Wednesday of first-degree murder. Daniel Wozniak, 31, was convicted by an Orange County jury that must now decide whether to recommend life in prison or the death penalty.

Wozniak was convicted of killing two Orange Coast College students on May 21, 2010.

Wozniak was deeply in debt, needed money for his upcoming wedding and was facing eviction when he concocted a plan to kill a neighbor, Samuel Herr, and steal $50,000 that the Army veteran had saved from his service in Afghanistan, prosecutors said.

Wozniak shot the 26-year-old Costa Mesa man in the attic of a Los Alamitos theater where Wozniak performed in community theater productions — including playing the lead in a musical the night after the killing. He later dismembered Herr and dumped the remains in a park.

Prosecutors said Wozniak used Herr’s phone to text the victim’s friend, Julie Kibuishi. He pretended to be Herr and got the 23-year-old to come to Herr’s apartment to talk so he could shoot her and make it appear that Herr had raped and killed her before fleeing.

Wozniak was arrested days later at his bachelor party….

A 16-year-old boy testified that Wozniak hired him to use Herr’s ATM card to withdraw money from the victim’s bank account.

Jurors also saw video of a police interview in which Wozniak confessed to the double killing.

Asked about motive, Wozniak replied: “Money and insanity.”

“I don’t know why I did it,” he added. “Mainly it was the money, and it seemed so easy.”

There are several aspects to this crime -- beyond the obvious one of the double murder -- which exude sociopathy.

Most of us would get nervous at the thought of singing in front of an audience. And we'd be absolute wrecks if we had just murdered someone, hacked up his body, and were worried about getting caught. Wozniak just got up on stage and sang his heart out, feigning love for the female lead -- all while plotting his next murder.

Sociopaths are always the best performers going, as they never suffer from self-doubt.

Wozniak was arrested at his bachelor party. Sociopaths have the unique ability to want to party even when their world is tumbling down. (This is why you'll see Ponzi schemers seeming to enjoy their riches, even as the Feds close in.) 

When asked why he did it, Wozniak replied, "Mainly it was the money, and it seemed so easy." Well, of course it was the money. But that aside, why did he do it? Most of us would respond, tremulously and shamefacedly, "I don't know, I don't know what came over me, I'm just really a horrible person, I guess" -- or something to that effect.

But Wozniak's shrugging response? He did it because "it seemed so easy." Sociopaths tend not to look inward.

(Wozniak's words are reminiscent of Richard Speck's response when asked why he killed those eight student nurses in Chicago on that fateful night in July of 1966: "Just wasn't their night, I guess.")

That Wozniak had thought pulling off a murder would be easy illustrates another aspect of sociopathy: they overestimate their own abilities. In particular, they overestimate their ability to fool others. 

Here's a picture of Wozniak, sitting in court last week: 

Look at that serene, untroubled, almost cherubic face. He's on trial for murder, yet he looks as if he's still looking forward to the rest of his bachelor party. You know, the good part, where he gets to have sex with the hired stripper in front of all his buddies.

A certain smugness also seems to be etched into that face: "Hey, I really am pretty cool."

All of this shows why it's so misleading when young sociopaths are labeled as "troubled youths." They are, in fact, the least troubled people in the world -- things that would tear the rest of us apart simply don't faze them in the least.

On the other hand, sociopaths are always a lot of trouble -- for other people. 

The religion of peace

Donald Trump has gained a lot of publicity, most of it negative, for his suggestion that the US stop allowing Muslims to immigrate until we can "figure out what's going on."

His statement elicited the usual howls of outrage from the Democrats and from the mainstream media (pardon me for being redundant). Even many in the Republican establishment have taken pains to distance themselves from Trump's suggestion.

They point out that not all Muslims are terrorists, in fact only a miniscule percentage of Muslims are, and that the vast majority of them are peace-loving and will fit in well in this country.

But is that actually the case? Take a look at the results of these polls:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

The polls date back to a few years ago, but the last three conducted in 2015, under the category of terrorism, are quite telling:

A full 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).

25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the "global Jihad (64% disagree).

Following the November attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for ISIS.

One in four, or one in five (depending on which poll you look at) is not a miniscule number.

If just one in ten of those 25% of Muslims-Americans who believe in violent jihad act on their beliefs, we could see a lot more San Bernadinos.

But hey, Obama's right. It would be un-American not to let more of them in. 

Let's not "invade their privacy"

Obama's edict that immigration officials not be allowed to check the social media of would-be Muslim immigrants on the grounds that it would "invade their privacy" is completely disingenuous, especially coming on the heels of the San Bernadino massacre, which could have been prevented had immigration officials only checked the Facebook postings of Tashfeen Malik, who had openly advocated jihad.

I used to think that people who said that Obama hated America were crazy. I thought, well, his loyalties are obviously racial, and his mission seems to be to transfer as much money and power as he possibly can from whites to blacks. But it's not as if he actually hates this country.

But it's hard to think of any other reason why he would want to prevent immigration officials from screening potential immigrants for terrorist leanings. How is it "invading their privacy" when they post these things on social media?

It's especially galling when you consider that the US government (until this past June) regularly spied on its own citizens by tracking their telephone conversations, which were never meant to be made public. Yet now they will not even look at the public postings of foreigners from fundamentalist Islamic countries who want to immigrate here?

My Martin Shkreli story

In the fall of 2012, I had a friend who owed me $21,900. Martin Shkreli owed him a similar amount, so he told Shkreli to just send me a check for $21,900. Shkreli then wrote out a check to me, photocopied it, and sent the picture to my friend as "proof" that he was paying me. My friend then forwarded me the email Shkreli had sent him.

Although I had never heard of Shkreli before this, I knew the minute I got that email that Shkreli would not send the check. If he had intended to pay, he would have simply sent the check. No one would go to the bother of photocopying it and sending the picture if he actually intended to pay.

I couldn't really say anything to my friend at that point because he was operating in good faith, and I didn't know anything about Shkreli, but I knew I wouldn't be getting it.

Three weeks later I told my friend that Shkreli hadn't sent the check, and my friend apologized and sent me a check himself.

I have no idea whether Shkreli ever paid my friend, as my friendship with him ended soon after.

But I haven't been all that surprised by what I've read about Shkreli since. Like all sociopaths, he thinks he's fooling people when he's not, and I have to admit I was gratified to hear that the Feds caught up with him yesterday.