Queer

I went for a swim the other day with my daughter at a nearby Y. while coming out of the shower in the men's locker room afterward, a naked man was coming out of the steam room opposite. when he saw me he came to an abrupt halt and his face lit up. His twitchy body language said, "Well hello there!"

I looked away and walked over to my locker. I got my gym bag out and started to get into my clothes, then sat on the bench to put on my socks and shoes when I noticed that he was just standing there, directly behind me, still naked.

I though he might be waiting to get to his locker, so asked, warily, "Do you want part of this bench?"

He replied airily, "Oh, I'm in no hurry. I have plenty of time. I don't have to catch a train anymore, or commute. Maybe some day you can be like me." He sounded awfully self-satisfied.

I thought, you're the last thing I would want to be like. But I wanted to keep the conversation to  a minimum, so said nothing.

A few moments later I squeezed some skin cream out of a small vial, and a small globule went on my bag.

"Oh, some got on your bag," the man exclaimed and reached forward as if to wipe it off.

I quickly held up a hand and gruffly said, "That's okay -- I got it," and wiped it off myself. (I didn't want him touching my gym bag.)

He was obviously getting a charge out of prancing around naked; he seemed to think he was in a gay bathhouse.

A normal, well-adjusted person wouldn't continue to push after someone acted standoffish. And to suggest to a complete stranger that the stranger could aspire to be like him demonstrated an extraordinarily clueless vanity.

I couldn't help but get the impression that his weirdness was inextricably tied to his sexuality. All I could think as I was exiting the locker room was, that's the kind of guy who inspired the use of the word "queer" to describe homosexuals, because there was just something really queer about him, in every sense of the term.

Some people will read this and accuse me of homophobia. But isn't it sexual harassment if he stands around completely naked, trying to continue a one-sided conversation?

If a woman feels repulsed by a pushy guy, the guy is assumed to have been harassing her. But if a guy feels repulsed by a pushy guy, he must be guilty of homophobia.

I support gay marriage. If I meet a nice, helpful gay guy, I'll appreciate his character.  If I meet a witty gay guy, I enjoy his sense of humor. But this guy inspired nothing but disgust.

The point being, gays have reclaimed the word "queer," in an aggressive/defensive sort of way. Maybe they ought to reconsider, just keep it at LGBT and drop the Q.

A latter day Blanche Dubois

I was driving down the left hand lane of a highway this past Monday when I saw that the cars in front of me had come to a sudden halt, so I jammed on my brakes.

I then saw that the car at the front of the line had come to a dead halt. I was wondering what was going on when it slowly moved into the middle lane, it's right turn signal flashing. The cars in the middle lane then had to come to a similar screeching halt.

The car then moved slowly into the right lane, and then to the off ramp which was a few yards ahead. I was seething, and if my thoughts had been public, well, I could have been convicted in the court of sexism.

As the cars on the highway slowly started up again I looked to my right to see if my suspicions would be confirmed, and, sure enough, they were. And not only that, but the driver was holding her phone up to her ear.

She had evidently been chatting the entire time.

I'd never seen anyone just come to a dead stop on a highway like that before.

Anyway, the spirit of Blanche lives on.

What is James Bond's IQ?

The other day I was talking to a young man whose IQ has been tested at 140.

He said, "You know, James Bond's IQ must have been around 140. That's just about right. Anything more and it would backfire -- he'd have ended up questioning himself all the time."

I replied, "Yeah, but Bond was awfully clever."

He shrugged, "I'm clever. Really, guys with IQ's of 155 just aren't that cool, they're sorta like helpless quivering masses of neuroses. Even at 140, I may be too high. I'll sometimes wonder if I did something right, rather than just looking forward and thinking about what's next."

I thought about that, but could think of no response.

The young man added, "Yeah, if you want to be a man of action, you can't become paralyzed with self-doubt, all those extra synapses firing off."

I had to agree. "That's actually why blacks are generally cooler than whites -- don't have all those extra synapses firing off all the time, making them nervous and neurotic like whites."

The young man continued, "Now Q, he may have been a 155. At least, the older version played by Desmond Llewelyn, not that new young twerp. But would you want to be Q?"

He concluded, "Guys with 155's just aren't that cool. At 140, I'm just way cooler. And even 140 may be too much for me."

It was an interesting take, and he's probably right.

And yes, I know, James Bond's IQ, silliest discussion ever.

"Son of Sam: I've found my life's calling"

An article in the NY Post this morning describes David Berkowitz's latest parole hearing, in which he talked about the good work he is doing in prison.

Back in 2011 I wrote about how Berkowitz claimed to have found God, and how he was working as prison chaplain and doing various other good works. But one thing we know about sociopaths is that they never change. Their acts may change, often by necessity (it's a lot harder to keep up the serial killing once you've been caught and convicted). And they often claim to have turned over a new leaf (and actually expect people to believe them). But inside, they remain the same old unreconstructed sociopaths.

In 2012, in a post about "The Day Stalker" (serial killer Franklin Lynch), I explained how sociopaths will often give themselves away with a certain stylistic quirk: overuse of adjectives and adverbs.

In today's NY Post article, Berkowitz, who will be a sociopath until the day he dies, does his gentleman-doth-protest-too-loudly bit once again, talking about the good works he does in prison. But if you pay close attention to his words, you'll see how he betrays himself with overemphasis:

“I’ve really done wonderful,” said Berkowitz appearing before a parole board during his latest and 15th parole hearing, according to the transcript, dated May 17, obtained by The Post.

“I was constantly putting myself out there to help other individuals, with kindness and compassion,” he said. “I mean, I feel that’s my life’s calling, all these years. My evaluations, and so forth, should show that to be true. I’ve done a lot of good and positive things, and I thank God for that...”

(Note that he wasn't just constantly putting himself out there to help others, he was doing it with kindness and compassion. A nonsociopath would never bother to add those two qualities, because it's just assumed he has them if he's helping others; ironically, a sociopath will, because he lacks them. And it wasn't just Berkowitz's entire life's calling, it's his life's calling all these years. And he hasn't just done a lot of good things, he's done a lot of good and positive things.)

“I feel I am no risk, whatsoever,” said the “.44 Caliber Killer” who called his gory reign of terror a “terrible tragedy...”

(He's not just no risk, he's no risk whatsoever.)

“Unfortunately, it was a terrible tragedy. I regret that with all my heart. I would do anything if I could ever change that,” said Berkowitz, adding that he is “deeply sorry.”

(Note the way he distances himself from his killings by referring to them with the impersonal "it." And the way he doesn't just regret it, he regrets it with all his heart. And the way he's not just sorry, but deeply sorry. You see, his emotions run very deep.)

“It was a time that my life was out of control. I’d do anything if I could go back and change that, but it’s impossible to go back into the past and fix those kinds of things.”

(Note that he doesn't say that he was out of control, merely that his life was. Another distancing.)

Berkowitz boasted about himself to the parole board, saying that while imprisoned, “for many years I have worked as…just like a caregiver.”

“I have a heart for helping and reaching out to inmates, offenders, who have psychiatric problems, who have a lot of depression, and things like that…so, I feel that’s my calling in life,” Berkowitz said….

(A nonsociopath would simply say that he's helping other inmates; a sociopath feels obliged to emphasize his "heart.")

However, he admitted that he told prison staffers that parole is not “realistic” for him.

“I feel that the crimes were so serious and the damage so severe, and so many people I’m sure are still hurting and grieving, that, realistically, something like parole, in my situation, would be very unusual,” he said.

(Once again, he doesn't take responsibility for his serial killing, referring to them as "the" crimes and not "my" crimes. And hey, "unusual" does not mean "impossible," does it?)

When pressed by the board as to where his past “rage” came from when he murdered and wounded innocent people, Berkowitz replied, “it’s beyond my comprehension.”

(By saying it's beyond his comprehension, Berkowitz is disavowing responsibility once again, and also trying to imply that it's almost as if he was in a fugue state when he committed the murders, and is a completely different person now. This is not all that different in spirit from how, when first caught, he claimed that a dog told him to commit the murders, in a sly effort to set up an insanity defense.)

He added, “I look back with, like, so much disbelief. There are times that I wake up and say, I can’t believe this happened…”

(Ditto.)

Berkowitz ended the letter saying, “I want to continue to be something of a role model for my fellow inmates, as well as a source of hope and inspiration to whomever I can.”

(Only a narcissistic personality sees himself as an inspiration to others. And only a shameless personality actually talks about it.) 

You have to think the only people who actually find the Son of Sam to be inspirational are wannabe serial killers. 

Who exactly are the "mentally ill" whom Obama wants to keep guns from?

President Obama, as always, tried to turn the latest mass killing to his political advantage, following up last weekend's Orlando massacre with yet another call for more gun control.

Obama's adamant refusal to associate Islam with terrorist attacks has long since passed the point of ludicrousness. Starting with his characterization of Major Hasan's killing of 14 at Ft. Hood as ordinary "workplace violence," Obama has consistently turned a blind eye to the obvious jihad-like nature of the attacks.

Obama also said this past week that it was ridiculous that a man like Mateen, who had been investigated (and cleared) by the FBI, would have ready access to guns. What Obama didn't say was that organizations like the FBI are reluctant to go after Muslims precisely because of the politically correct atmosphere promoted by his own administration.

Every operative at a federal agency knows that it's worth his career if he shows any "bias" or "prejudice" or does any "racial profiling" against a member of an Obama-favored group.

Obama did say this week, as he has said several times in the past, that guns have to be "kept out of the wrong hands." But if he's not referring to those bent on jihad, then which exactly are the "wrong hands" he is referring to?

Obama mentioned that mental health records should be cross checked when gun purchases are made. But very few young people (most mass shooters are young) actually have publicly available mental health records.

And who exactly is Obama referring, anyway, when he talks of the "mentally ill?" Exactly which people, with which syndromes, is he talking about?

People who suffer from depression? Someone who is suicidal might possibly be thinking in terms of taking somebody with them. Should Robin Williams, Isaac Asimov, Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Abraham Lincoln, and John D. Rockefeller all have been denied a gun for that reason?

People who are bipolar? Should Dick Cavett, Carrie Fisher, Phil Ochs, Lou Reed, Ted Turner be denied permits? Should Edgar Allan Poe, Vincent Van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf have been denied them?

Schizophrenics? Even when they're medicated?

Most Americans believe that any jihadist who thinks he is going to receive 72 virgins in Paradise is delusional, i.e., psychotic. But of course, going by that definition, Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell are similarly misled.

Or how about people with narcissistic personality disorder? That includes an awful lot of people too: just think in terms of everyone you know who thinks he's better than he is at various things. Or everybody who seems inclined to take more credit and less blame than he deserves. That would seem to include a high percentage of those in Congress.

Sociopaths? At first glance, this would probably be the first group you'd want to prevent from having access to firearms. But would Barack Obama want to prevent Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Wendy Davis, Carly Fiorina, Joe Arpaio, and even himself from having guns?

How about the gays? Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness by the DSM until quite recently. And male homosexuals punch way above their weight when it comes to serial killing. So should they be excluded from the gun-carrying fraternity?

Or how about transgenders, who put the "T" in LGBT? The DSM does still list them as having "gender dysphoria," an identifiable syndrome. So….should Caitlyn Jenner and Chaz Bono not be allowed the right to defend themselves? You'd think that of all people, they need protection most.

Neurotics? (That includes most of us.)

Or how about people with ADD or ADHD? That's an awfully big segment of the population, too. But lapses in concentration can lead to lapses in judgment.

People with OCD? Would Obama have prevented Charles Darwin, Howard Hughes, Michelangelo, and Ludwig Van Beethoven from owning weapons? Doubtful. Would he prevent Donald Trump from owning one? (Probably.) But what about Howard Stern, Harrison Ford, Martin Scorsese, and Leo DiCaprio?

People with Aspergers? Would Obama not allow Al Gore to have a gun? Would he have prevented Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, George Orwell, and Thomas Edison from obtaining permits?

Or how about war heroes with PTSD? Certainly if there's one category of people who've earned the right to defend themselves, it's those who've defended the country. But, some of them have been known to turn violent.

The "mentally ill" is an awfully vague category that covers a whole lot of people.

On top of that, does Obama have any idea how few young people have actually visited a psychiatrist? Is he aware that the vast majority of people with these various syndromes go undiagnosed? And does he realize that if they have visited a psychiatrist, that doctor is unlikely to have given his records to law enforcement, because of privacy concerns?

Is Obama aware that the vast majority of people with these various syndromes never turn violent? Wouldn't this type of program, if aimed at, say, an entire ethnic group, be deemed "discrimination?"

Think in terms of how black people commit a vastly disproportionate share of handgun violence, yet at the same time the vast majority of black people are law-abiding. Wouldn't keeping guns from blacks be viewed as discriminatory? The very idea seems unthinkable; yet wouldn't keeping guns from "the mentally ill" be equally discriminatory?

The concept of keeping guns from "the mentally ill," without being very specific about exactly whom you're referring to, seems extremely problematic. 

"Man headed to gay pride parade had assault rifle, 15 pounds of explosives"

Evidently at the same time that Omar Mateen was in the middle of his murderous rampage in Florida, James Howell was planning mayhem at the annual West Hollywood gay pride parade.

(Howell)

The most interesting excerpt from the article:

Friends in Indiana described Howell as a gun enthusiast with a short temper. In October, he twice was accused of pulling a gun and making threats, once against his then-boyfriend and once against a neighbor.

There's a lot of publicity these days about prejudice against the LGBT community. And, well, yes, it definitely exists. But, it would be interesting to find out what percentage of murders of gays are committed by other gays. 

Judging from recent evidence, it would seem to be quite high. 

There's a parallel here with the murder of blacks. To hear the Left tell it, the biggest danger blacks face is rampaging, violent whites, especially the police, who have nothing better to do than hunt young black men. 

The statistics, of course, tell a different story.

There's also a lot of talk from the left about how the poor, victimized LGBT community needs to be protected from prejudiced heterosexuals. After all, just look at their poster child, Mathew Shepard. For a long time, he was the gay martyr, an innocent youth murdered in a fit of homophobic hatred.

You don't hear Shepard's name as much anymore, because that story was debunked, though the debunking received very little publicity. It turned out that one of the two men who tied Shepard to a fencepost and left him to die on that freezing Wyoming night -- because of a drug deal gone bad -- was his occasional lover. 

I've heard that NYPD detectives can usually tell if a murder is a gay-on-gay killing, because the victim is so often disfigured.

Perhaps from now on gays should carry placards that read, "Save us from ourselves!"

Or, "Stop LGBT-on-LGBT violence!"

Straight guys may feel a mild revulsion for gay men, but nobody quite hates gays like other gays.

Question about Omar Mateen

Islamic State warrior Omar Mateen, having single-handedly won the Battle of Pulse, is now in Paradise, enjoying the ministrations of 72 virgins.

But are those virgins women, or men?

"Ex-wife's bombshell claim: Club shooter had 'gay' tendencies"

An article in the NY Post this morning made it quite clear that Omar Mateen himself was gay. The relevant excerpts:

Sitora Yusufiy, who was married to Mateen in 2009 for three months, made the shocking claim on Brazilian television station SBT Brazil.

Her fiancé, Marco Dias, speaking in Portuguese on her behalf, said that Yusufiy believed that Mateen had “gay tendencies” and that his father had called him gay in front of her...

The bombshell came as a male former classmate of Omar Mateen said he had been asked out romantically by the mass killer, who reportedly was a virtual regular at the Pulse nightclub, having visited it more than a dozen times over the years.

The former classmate said he would hang out with Mateen, hitting gay bars after attending class at Indian River Community College police academy in 2006 — and one time Mateen asked him out “romantically,” according to the Palm Beach Post.

The classmate’s claims came after reports emerged that Mateen frequented the club for years before Sunday’s massacre.

“It’s the same guy,” Chris Callen, a drag queen who performs under the name Kristina McLaughlin, told the Canadian Press. “He’s been going to this bar for at least three years.”

Callen’s husband, Ty Smith, recalled seeing Mateen being escorted drunk from the club.
“Sometimes he . . . would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent,” he told the Orlando Sentinel...

They also shot down claims that Mateen had snapped after seeing two men kissing each other in public.

“That’s bullcrap, right there. No offense. That’s straight-up crap. He’s been around us,” Smith said. “Some of those people did a little more than (kiss) outside the bar…He was partying with the people who supposedly drove him to do this?”

Kevin West, another regular at Pulse, told the Los Angeles Times that Mateen used gay dating apps on a regular basis and even messaged him on the gay dating app, Jack’d...

One Orlando man, who refused to be named, told MSNBC that he had seen photos of Mateen on several gay dating apps, including Grindr, Adam4Adam, and Jack’d. He claimed that at least two of the man’s friends had been contacted by Mateen on the apps in the past...

The headline of the Post article obviously understates the case: Mateen didn't just have "tendencies." With that mountain of evidence, there's no question he was gay.

You normally don't associate a black skullcap with homosexuality. And looking at pictures of Mateen, he doesn't have a discernibly gay face. In fact, he has a masculine face. Which makes him that creepiest of characters, a masculine gay guy:

The whole incident makes more sense now. Mateen was partly just a traditional gay-basher, beating up -- or in this case, killing -- that which he didn't like in himself.

Anyway, now that it's turned out that Mateen was gay himself, it'll be interesting to see if the Left treads a little lighter when it comes to the hateful anti-LGBT nature of the crime. (Was it a "hate crime" when Jeffrey Dahmer ate so many of his fellow homosexuals?)

Mateen must have been awfully conflicted. As someone who reportedly cheered 9/11, he must have wanted to be a good Muslim; his brief marriage was probably an attempt to fulfill that role. But, unfortunately for him, he found himself full of homosexual desire. 

So, at one level, Mateen was merely a sexual misfit. 

But he was also a serious Muslim. 

So the central question is, would he have committed these murders if he hadn't been Muslim? It seems fairly obvious he wouldn't have. The conflict between his religion and his sexuality, his anti-American sentiment, and the shame inherent in not living up to his Afghan father's strict edicts all fed into his murderous spree.

(And the fact that, right in the middle of his murderous spree, he phoned the local police to swear his allegiance to ISIS is a pretty solid clue as to his motives.)

I sometimes wonder if a lot of suicide bombers aren't people whose earthy existence isn't quite working out to their satisfaction. And if they weren't Muslim, if they might be suicidally inclined anyway. But being Muslim gives them cover, or perhaps just an excuse, to do what they might have done anyway. And this way, they get to think of themselves as "noble martyrs" and take a lot of people with them at the same time.  

So, yes, it's still basically a Muslim killing. The story just has an unexpectedly perverse twist.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack soon after it happened. Now that some of the details of Mateen's lifestyle have come to light, will they continue to claim his as one of their own, as an Islamic State fighter and hero? 

The Florida shooting

The latest reports are that 50 people are dead and 53 wounded at the hands of Omar Mateen, an American Muslim of Afghan descent who was born here in 1986:

Turns out he had pledged allegiance to ISIS recently.

The Left will renew their calls for gun control and cite the anti-gay aspect of the killings, while soft-pedaling the Muslim angle. The Right will see this as another incident of domestic Islamist terrorism.

The public at large, with no axe to grind, will see mostly the Muslim angle. They'll see the anti-gay aspect of it, too, but they know that Islam is an anti-gay religion, and that you can't separate the two.

Mateen might as well have marched into that nightclub with an "Elect Trump" sign.

Academia in action

Got the following comment after the Sociopath alert: Julie Miller post yesterday from "Alex":

John, I disagree. I do not know this person or anything more about the situation than what I read above.

Lying with emphasis is something children and crooks do all the time and not an definitive indicator of sociopathy . Parking illegally and avoiding fines is dishonest but not an indicator of sociopathy. Fallacious.
Bill Clinton denying his relationship is not sociopathic either, probably a feeble attempt at protecting ego and position.

It's like ADHD diagnosis for kids, autism spectrum etc and it's a dangerous trait that blurs the line between acceptable and truly unacceptable behavior - and institutes a dangerous form of normative and sociological control of individual's behaviour (in this case, a dishonnest behavior of stealing a victory by unfair means which should not be equated to the damage done by truly sociopathic individuals to others - usually through physical and continuous psychological abuse and deception.).

It seems that the article describes symptoms of narcissistic PD more than psychopathy/sociopathy.

As with all Personality Disorders, We all display sociopathic traits of various amounts at various times.

By trying to enlarge labeling of "sociopath" to a larger set of people who display sociopathic tendencies or traits at times, it diminishes the value of the term to label truly dangerous individuals to society. Race cheaters are not sociopaths. Most serial killers are sociopaths.

I replied:

First, I didn't say that lying emphatically is itself proof of sociopathy. I said that that is what sociopaths do. And yes, kids do it, but that's one reason why the DSM and other sources say that you shouldn't make a diagnosis of sociopathy before age 16 (though the signs of it are often there early on).

It's the entire pattern of behavior that gives away sociopathy, and one of the surer indicators in adults is lying about something you don't have to lie about (in order to get out of trouble), i.e., lying to burnish your own glory. And this wasn't the only time Miller had lied about a race.

"Most" serial killers are sociopaths??! Where did you get that? ALL serial killers are sociopaths, period, it's the surest sign of sociopathy there is. There are mass murderers who are not sociopaths, but serial killing takes a degree of cunning and also such a complete disregard for others that only a sociopath could do it. Keep in mind, sociopaths are generally considered to be roughly 3% of the population, and serial killers, who are the most dramatically destructive of sociopaths, represent only a small percentage of them.

And if race cheaters are not sociopaths, you must be absolving Kendall Schler and Rosie Ruiz from that diagnosis as well. Have you ever looked at Ruiz's life history?

You're throwing around some of the jargon without really having a feel for sociopaths, which says to me you've learned about sociopathy almost entirely from a book.

I've met people like Alex before. They think they sound smart if they take the middle ground on everything, regardless of the truth. They tend to be enamored of academia. And they give themselves away by using words like "normative" and "sociological."

Saying something like, "We all display sociopathic traits of various amounts at various times" makes Alex feel that he's showing balance, and wisdom. It's sort of like saying, "We all have good and bad in us," the sort of homily that has some truth to it but in the end imparts no useful information. The fact is, we don't all do what Julie Miller did, stage an elaborate hoax, sawing off our timer chip and cheating on the course to "win" a large race, maintaining an obvious charade, and lying so vociferously even after being caught. Most of us would be so consumed with shame at doing such a thing that it would never even occur to us to so it in the first place.

Alex also pointed out, helpfully, that "Parking illegally and avoiding fines is dishonest but not an indicator of sociopathy. Fallacious." (I don't believe I said that they were.)

What Alex is thinking is, well, we can all be a little dishonest from time to time. (So what?) Little white lies, or parking illegally, or fibbing about the traffic as an excuse for why we were late aren't even close to sociopathic behavior. What distinguishes sociopathic behavior is the utter shamelessness and scope of the lie(s). So equating other lies with sociopathic lies is meaningless. 

I particularly liked his line, "Most serial killers are sociopaths." There are some murderers who are not sociopaths; and there are mass killers who are simply psychotic, rather than sociopathic. But there's never been a single serial killer -- someone who appears relatively normal to his neighbors and coworkers, and sneakily kills people one by one over a long period of time, usually to satisfy some sexual kink --  who hasn't been a sociopath. 

Ah, but by not speaking in absolutes, Alex seems to think he appears wise. 

I, too, would like to appear that wise. So let me try a few similar statements on for size: 

Most Olympic champions in the 100 meter dash are fast runners. But we all run quickly at times, to various degrees. 

Most people who weigh over 600 pounds are overweight. But we all have a little extra fat we probably don't need, in various amounts, at various times. 

Most billionaires are rich. But we all have money, in various amounts, at various times. 

There -- don't I sound smart? And don't you feel better-informed for having listened to me?

Alex obviously needs some firsthand experience with a sociopath in order to really learn about them. But I get the sense that Alex, even with that firsthand experience, might not see what's in front of him. 

Then again, that's what academics specialize in.

Why people loved Ali

It's become even more apparent over the past week how fond people were of Ali. Not just the media types, and the usual suspects trying to burnish their anti-racist credentials, but the vast majority of people.

One crucial point always overlooked in discussions of Ali is that when he converted to Islam after winning the title is that he was 22 years old at the time. College age. Think of what college students are protesting these days. (And would you want to be held responsible for all the things you said and did at 22?)

When Ali refused to be drafted in 1967, he was 25. At the time, and even now, people took his stances very seriously, as if he were some insightful statesman who had arrived at his decision after a lifetime of careful observation and study, and that his political views were of earth-shaking consequence.

(I was guilty of this myself two days ago when I wrote the previous post about his pronouncements about all whites being the devil, though that post was more about that idea than Ali himself.)

So, keep in mind that he was just a kid. Nobody ever saw him that way because he was the heavyweight champion of the world. But, he was still just a kid.

Anyway, back to the point of this post. What made Ali so likable?

It was that while the world was taking him very seriously, he, for the most part, didn't seem to take himself all that seriously. If you had to choose one word to describe Ali, it would be playful.

Traditionally, the heavyweight champion has carried the mantle of baddest man on the planet. Sonny Liston, that glowering, menacing, humorless man seemed like the kind of guy you'd expect to hold the title. You got the sense that he was dangerous outside the ring as well as in it.

Then along came a crown prince who hammed it up and spouted doggerel and proclaimed that he was the greatest of all time. But when he did these things, it was always with a touch of self-mockery. And while everybody else was taking his pronouncements very seriously, if you looked closely, you could see that he was basically just playing a big joke on the world.

While looking at those videos of Ali proclaiming that all whites were the devil, I also stumbled across this one, and this one, both of Ali's funnier moments, as well. In some of them he's taunting his opponents; watch closely, and you'll see he's just play-acting.

And even when I was looking at those videos of Ali saying that the white man is the devil, somehow I couldn't quite bring myself to dislike him.

A sense of humor can allow you to get away with all sorts of things you might not otherwise. I'm not suggesting Ali should totally escape censure. But even when he was saying poisonous things, he didn't seem to have that much poison in his system.

When taking part in prefight publicity, he would often pretend to be angry at his opponents, but the "anger" was so obviously playacting that you almost got the sense he was incapable of real anger.

So he came across cute, in his uninhibited, boyish way.

The videos linked above show Ali with the rich and famous, but he never demonstrated any desire to social climb. He joked with everybody, and loved to mingle with people he met on the street. He could have been "friends" with anyone, but preferred to just hang with his entourage.

The closest equivalent today is Usain Bolt. Bolt jokes, dances, and plays to the crowd, just as Ali did. And you always get the sense he enjoys himself, just as Ali did.

You could say it's condescending to regard Bolt and Ali as embodiments of the old stereotype of the happy-go-lucky negro. You could say it's condescending not to hold Ali completely responsible for some of the things he said, the same way we would not hold a child responsible. And, maybe it is.

But, at the same time, it's an admission that these guys were charismatic in a way that most of us couldn't possibly hope to be, and enjoyed life more than we ever could.

Muhammad Ali weekend

We were all greeted with the news of Muhammad Ali's death when we woke up this morning, and the rest of the weekend we'll be hearing fulsome tributes from those who want to bask in his reflected glory.

Ali was, unquestionably, larger than life. At one point he had the most recognized face in the world, more so than any world leader at the time.

Ali was also, unquestionably, a noble warrior. His longevity as a boxer was incredible. It's amazing to think that he became an Olympic champion during the Eisenhower Presidency, then won his final title when Jimmy Carter was President.

Ali faced the hardest punchers of several generations of boxers, and never gave up. But in the end, his victories were Pyrrhic, as he spent the last 30 years of his life essentially punch drunk. He beat Foreman with his much vaunted "Rope a dope" strategy, but eventually he was the one it turned into a dope. We can blame his Parkinson's on Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Ernie Shavers, and George Foreman.

It seemed all the more a shame because when Ali was young he was quick-witted and playful and humorous and charming.

Ali, born in 1942, spent his early youth in the era of segregation, and his politics, an outgrowth of that, were an entirely different matter from what the BLM crowd is pushing now.

Back then, civil rights were about desegregating lunch counters and swimming pools, and gaining admission to college if they were qualified. Today, it's all about pretending that black people are in more danger from whites than whites are from blacks. Or about pretending that if blacks don't do as well on the SAT's it must be because of "racism," that amorphous evil that magically accounts for all racial differences.

So it's easier to be sympathetic to Ali than to the current crop of protesters.

Still, it's as silly to pay attention to the political opinions of athletes as it is to pay heed to those of movie stars. And a lot of the things that Ali stood for didn't bear close scrutiny. He was, as I pointed out here, sort of a segregationist.

He claimed to be a pacifist, a seemingly hypocritical stance for someone who beat people up for a living.

And he famously said, "I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me nigger." (True enough, but that was mainly because the Vietnamese were unfamiliar with blacks. It's been well documented since then that the Vietnamese treated the offspring of black GI's and Vietnamese women even more harshly than they did the half white Amerasians.)

But don't expect any close scrutiny this weekend. Expect a lot of maudlin tributes. And expect the usual suspects to try to grab some of his glory for themselves. Jesse Jackson will undoubtedly show up at his funeral next week, try to act as master of ceremonies, and in general hog the limelight as much as he can (especially if Obama doesn't show up). Al Sharpton will undoubtedly attend as well, looking appropriately somber.

Obama may or may not attend the funeral, but will undoubtedly release a carefully crafted statement -- written by his speechwriters -- about what a great hero Ali was and subtly expressing solidarity with Ali's political stances while simultaneously sanitizing those stances.

White liberals everywhere will spout about how much they loved Ali, and how wonderful he was, using the occasion to boost their non-racist credentials.

And newscasters, most of whom will be too young to remember, will reminisce about how incredible it was when Ali beat Foreman.

My advice: turn off the TV.

A cliche of a sociopath

The NY Post ran an article last week, The downfall of NYC's hottest vegan, which illustrated perfectly how a sociopath can lead a naive, somewhat weak-minded person astray.

Sarma Melngailis is now charged with stealing two million dollars from her trendy restaurant, Pure Food and Wine. (She's the weak-minded one.) Evidently everything had been going fairly well for her until she got together with Anthony Strangis, a man with a long track record of deceit and criminality:

Strangis' life appears to be one big sociopathic cliche. For instance, he once impersonated a police officer. That's pretty much all you need to know right there: impersonation is a sociopathic specialty, and impersonating a cop takes a special kind of gall. Strangis also posed as a wealthy man in order to drum up funds for Melngailis' restaurant, another deception.

Strangis was a gambling "addict." Gambling, like sex, isn't physically addictive. But a sociopath has so few inhibitions and so little thought for the future that he "can't resist" their lures, and thus is far more likely to become "addicted" to sex or gambling.

Strangis was manipulative. He got Melngailis, a woman with an Ivy League degree, to act completely self-destructively. He, like all sociopaths, had a "reality distortion field" that caused her to buy into his ridiculous demands and see things from his point of view. It looks pathetic from the outside, but being in thrall to a Svengali is something that can only be experienced from the inside.

Strangis told his ex-wife he was a retired Navy SEAL. Sociopaths often claim to be either former Special Forces, or ex-CIA. These are pretty much the ultimate in badass jobs, so someone who's a pathological liar will often falsely claim them. Stolen glory is another sociopathic specialty.

(Strangis originally told his ex-wife that the bandages on his chest were from a war wound, when in fact he was just taping down his man boobs.)

Pointing the finger at Melngailis is another sociopathic touch. Strangis obviously has zero loyalty: after manipulating her into abetting his crimes, he then blamed her for them.

Strangis' life appears to be almost a parody of sociopathy. But in fact, if you look closely enough, every sociopath has led a life which is nothing but sociopathic cliches, since sociopaths never depart from character. They may pose as something they're not -- like kind, caring, or noble -- but even those acts are cliches of sociopathic subterfuges.

Melngailis is certainly not without blame; she knowingly went along with Strangis' schemes. So she deserves whatever jail time she's going to get.

But not as much as Strangis does.

A quote from Marshall Mcluhan

Was just rereading parts of Hooking Up, Tom Wolfe's great collection of essays, published in 2000. On page 117, this quote, from Marshall McLuhan, really resonated.

"Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."

Think of all the people you know who, when confronted with a "hate fact," sputter, "I find that really offensive!"

McLuhan had their intelligence gauged accurately.

Fictional "sociopaths"

A friend recently pointed out that the fictional character Francis Underwood would have to be a sociopath to do the things he did in House of Cards.

I replied, yes, he would have to be a sociopath to do those things, but keep in mind he's a Hollywood sociopath, not a real one. Hollywood always tries to imbue their anti-hero semi-sociopaths with redeeming characteristics in order to make them more sympathetic. A screenwriter's job is to create a dramatic arc, with lots of tension and conflict -- including inner conflict. This always makes for a more entertaining story.

The problem is, sociopaths generally don't feel inner conflict. There is never any sort of battle between good and evil going on in within them, simply because there isn't any good.

Francis Underwood is actually one of the better fictional portrayals of a sociopath. He's all about gaining power, no matter what it takes. And he's a glib, accomplished manipulator and liar. But we're still supposed to believe that he cares about the issues, and that he wants to do good for the masses.

Think of The Sting, with those two lovable con men played by Paul Newman and Robert Redford. The problem there is that almost all con men, by definition, are sociopaths. People who make a living by pretending to be something they're not and by preying on others' gullibility and vulnerability are the very definition of sociopathy. But The Sting, of course, portrayed the Newman and Redford characters as loyal, loving paragons of decency.

I pointed out in June 2011 that Catch Me If You Can, which was based on Frank Abagnale's life, was a completely one-sided portrayal of sociopathy. We're supposed to exult along with Leo DiCaprio at his ability to fool people into thinking he was actually an airline pilot or a doctor: how cool that he could get away with that! What a charming rascal! But anybody who would actually do this -- and risk the damage incurred by these impersonations -- would have to be a sociopath, with all of the disloyalty and narcissism associated with such. But at the end of the movie we're supposed to be happy for the Abagnale/DiCaprio character that he has since become a respected security consultant.

One of the worst misrepresentations of a sociopath was The Iceman, based on serial killer (and hit man) Richard Kuklinski. If you know anything about Kuklinski, you know that he was a stone cold sociopath. He beat his wife mercilessly, breaking her bones on several occasions. And he said in one jailhouse interview that his one regret was that he didn't kill his own father. Yet while the movie doesn't shy away from his many murders, it also portrays him as a loving family man, and we are supposed to be left wondering, which is the real Kuklinski? In real life, there was no such doubt.

The list of Hollywood movies with unrealistic portrayals of characters who would pretty much have to be sociopaths goes on and on. In fact, most action heroes, who remain impossibly calm in the face of death and always have a witty line at hand, are portraying characters who would almost have to be sociopaths in order to be that recklessly cavalier about safety as well as glib. Yet the protagonists are always portrayed in a heroic light.

These action heroes are what we would like to be, if only we had the nerve. But in fact, you really don't want to be a sociopath, though you might admire his courage and coolness.

So it's best you don't learn about sociopaths from fictional characters. Read the headlines, examine the crime reports, and think about the worst person you ever knew personally, instead. There should be plenty of material there.

Liberal thought, via Dixon Diaz

A friend forwarded this cartoon the other day:

It's by Dixon Diaz, whom I'm not familiar with. I don't know how much play this has gotten elsewhere, but thought it worth reposting.

Divorce announcements

Every Sunday the New York Times carries a long-than-usual wedding announcement, which incorporates a story about how the couple met and when they were initially attracted to each other, etc. These stories are inevitably reported in a sort of breathless tone.

An excerpt from Sunday's designated romance story, about Elizabeth and Reid Simon: Just Friends with Places to Go, in italics (my comments in parentheses):

“In the brief time that we spoke, I found her to be smart, sassy and very confident,” Mr. Simon said.

They soon realized that they lived a floor apart in the same dormitory. “It wasn’t really where the cool kids were,” Mr. Simon said. They became fast friends.

“He was very kind and very smart, creative and inclusive,” Ms. Walsh said. “He had all the qualities you would want in a friend, especially when you’re trying to make other friends.”

In July 2009, he flew to visit her at her family’s home in Baton Rouge, where he stayed for three days, leading their families to “start becoming skeptical about our so-called friendship,” as Mr. Simon put it.

“I distinctly remember my mom being suspicious,” she said. “Moms just know.”

When she returned the favor by visiting his family for Thanksgiving, “nobody believed that we were just friends anymore,” Mr. Simon said.

By December, they were dating steadily, and were still dating in January 2011, when Ms. Walsh, now in her junior year, went on a five-month study-abroad program to Cape Town. In March, Mr. Simon boarded a plane for Cape Town.

“Getting together in South Africa was a sign of our deep commitment,” he said. “We were both very ambitious and very driven people who, by that time, felt very comfortable around each other.”

After graduation, both landed jobs in Washington, and last October, he proposed on a frigid, blustery day at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, where they went hiking. As they began their descent in the face of fierce, cold winds, Mr. Simon suddenly dropped to one knee and pulled out an engagement ring.

“He was so nervous about dropping the ring that he was not willing to let it out of his hands,” she said, laughing. “I had to kind of fight him for it, and I finally managed to take it away and slip it on my finger.”

Both Elizabeth and Reid are probably decent enough people. And falling in love is supposed to release oxytocin into your system, which causes euphoria. But there's something about the cloying way the Times describes young love that inevitably releases bile into mine.

How exactly does the Times expect us to react to these stories? ("Oh! That's so cool! That's so precious! True love is so moving!")

Are Elizabeth and Reid and every other couple featured thusly in the Times headed for the eternal bliss that seems to be the only possible outcome of such a perfect love match, at least as depicted in these articles?

For many couples, once the honeymoon is over, many of the adjectives they initially use to describe each other (kind, smart, creative, inclusive) tend to gradually devolve into other adjectives (selfish, stupid, lazy, conceited).

I'm not saying this is the case with Elizabeth and Reid; but marriages do tend to sour. Roughly half end in divorce. Given which, wouldn't it be more interesting -- and gratifying -- if, along with the wedding announcements, they had divorce announcements?

Honest ones, with full explanations for the split. From both parties.

The relevant information might include which party cheated first, and how they got caught. ("That little whore cheated on me with her last boyfriend from the minute we got married, though I didn't realize it until a few years later."/"That pig never had any intention of remaining faithful to me, I was just the little wifey to cook and clean for him, he always had something on the side.")

Also, what the money arguments were like. ("That bitch just couldn't stop spending money, even though she didn't bring a penny to the table herself."/"That cheap prick wouldn't even spring for a new Beamer for me, even though he drives around in a Mercedes.")

And an opinion about each other's intelligence. ("She's a fucking retard, I mean it, the only thing she's got going for her is she's good-looking. Or used to be."/"That dumbass thinks he's smart, but all he ever does is repeat other people's opinions and then look pleased with himself, like he came up with them himself.")

And if either party had an identifiable personality syndrome. ("She was so hot and cold I think she was bipolar. I really do."/"He's a sociopath. I swear.")

Also, odious personal habits. ("She'd leave used tampons in the bathroom waste can, where I could see them."/"Half the time when he'd take a dump he wouldn't even flush the toilet. And he'd fart all night long.")

And, what each was like in bed. ("You know, I never got head from her even once, during the entire marriage."/"All he'd do is stick it in and then roll off after a minute or so. He had no idea how to give a woman an orgasm. No fucking clue.")

And, finally, the fate they wish for each other. ("I hope she ends up in a mental ward. That's where she belongs."/"Burning in hell would be too good for that bastard. It really would.")

Now, wouldn't that be a lot more entertaining to read than those sappy wedding stories?

Leo Dicaprio, Environmental Warrior

Leo DiCaprio was in the news two days ago for having taken a private jet to fly from Cannes to New York and back in order to accept an award for his environmental activism from the Riverkeepers group.

A private jet burns as much fuel in an hour as the average car does in a year.

When DiCaprio accepted his Oscar for The Revenant in late February, he said in his acceptance speech, "Climate change is real. It is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating."

This weekend's private jet was bad enough, but it turned out that DiCaprio had taken twelve private jet flights from New York to Los Angeles and back over the course of six weeks in April and May of 2014.

Evidently Leo doesn't feel any great urgency, because he's still procrastinating. Here's a picture of the 450 foot yacht DiCaprio rented last year during the Cannes film festival:

Of course, when he's at home in Los Angeles, Leo drives around in a Prius to demonstrate what a noble eco-warrior he is. And every now and then he and one of his girlfriends will pedal around on bicycles just to show the rest of us how it's supposed to be done.

There seems to be an ironclad rule: you're not allowed to be a spokesman for the environment unless you're an environmental criminal yourself.

Al Gore, who won the Nobel Prize in 2007 for his effort to bring attention to global warming, is probably the most famous eco-blowhard of all. You probably remember how it turned out that his house in Nashville had a carbon footprint 20 times that of the average house. He had a fleet of SUV's, and traveled around in private jets.

Here's Al's new house in Montecito:

Barbra Streisand advises others to only turn their thermostats down to 78 degrees during the summer. But she regularly keeps her 16 room Manhattan triplex much cooler, even after she's taken a private jet to fly to one of her three houses in Malibu. Here's one of them:

John Travolta has lectured us on how we all have to do our bit for the environment. Yet he owns a fleet of five private jets. Here's his house (seriously):

The list of eco-hypocrites has certainly been well-publicized over time; given which, it's hard not to wonder how they expect others to take them seriously.

People are most likely to criticize in others what they themselves are guilty of. In a comment on this blog, an Aspie accused me of having Aspergers Syndrome. A gay guy accused me of being gay. A sociopath accused me of being a narcissist who gets a buzz from other's misfortunes. And so on. A woman who obviously saw herself as an authority on Aspergers accused me of seeing myself as a "shining authoritative light" on the subject.

We all project somewhat, and we just naturally assume that others think like us. This is why nice people tend to assume the best about others, and sociopaths often assume others are treacherous liars.

But it's the narcissistic who are most vocal with their criticisms.

For the rich and famous and self-indulgent to hector others about their environmentally wasteful lifestyles certainly fits that pattern.

Donald Trump's sins vs. Hillary Clinton's sins

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have high negative ratings from sizable percentages of the electorate. This is due to the various controversies which have beset each candidate.

It's instructive to look at these controversies side by side.

Trump said that John McCain was not a war hero.

Between 1978 and 1979, Hillary Clinton, as First Lady of Arkansas, took a $1000 investment and quickly turned it into $100,000 from trading cattle futures. The two men who placed her trades at the exchange, James Blair and Robert "Red" Bone, were current and past employees of Tyson Chicken, which wanted Governor Clinton to lift various environmental restrictions on their business. Clinton denied receiving preferential treatment from the men, but economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University later determined that the odds of anyone making that sort of return during that period were "at best one in 31 trillion."

Trump said, in reference to Carly Fiorina, “Look at that face -- would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”

Hillary fired the White House travel office personnel who had served seven Presidents in order for their Hollywood friends to get that lucrative business. The Clintons, under public pressure, were later forced to reinstate the personnel, who had been falsely accused of financial misdeeds.

Trump said Muslim immigration should be temporarily halted until we can better vet them to screen out potential terrorists.

Clinton lied and stonewalled when it came to producing documents about the Benghazi coverup.

Trump said that he would build a wall along our southern border to keep out illegal immigrants. He also said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best….They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

According to Salon: While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

Trump said after one of the Republican debates that moderator Megyn Kelly was "bleeding from her eyes, bleeding from her wherever."

Algeria made a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation, and voila, it got taken off the State Department's terrorist watch list, thanks to Madame Secretary.

Trump imitated a NY Times reporter who had a physical disability.

Secretary of State Clinton used a personal email server for official business so that her emails would never have to become public, allowing the Russians and Chinese to spy on us.

Trump: called Senator Rubio "little Marco" and Senator Cruz "Lyin' Ted."

After Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate, donated a total of $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary, as Secretary of State, signed off on a deal allowing Giustra to sell one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the US to the Russians.

It's hard not to notice a pattern. All of Trump's scandals are about rudeness. All of Hillary's are about dishonesty and corruption.

Our choice boils down to a big mouth vs. a bribe-taker.

A narcissistic braggart vs. a sociopathic crook.

It may not sound like a great choice, but it's an easy one.

Sticks and stones….

How little I know

I was watching one of those survival shows on TV the other night. This one was set in Alaska, with a number of people placed in different coves trying to survive for a certain set period of time. They were trapping fish with gill nets, building fires, fending off predators, building shelters, that type of thing. It occurred to me that I don't have the skills to do any of those things.

Then it occurred to me what an incredible number of everyday things there are that I don't know, or don't know how to do. I don't know how to operate a motorcycle, or drive a truck.

I don't even know how to cook, beyond making scrambled eggs or frying a steak. I can follow the instruction on a package, but as far as assembling ingredients myself, forget it.

Rural guys usually have a whole range of skills I don't have. They know how to hunt, or fish. They know how to clean a fish, or get the meat from a dead deer. They can identify wild animals by the sounds they make. (I've been known to mistake a squirrel scampering through dry leaves as a grizzly bear.) They can load and shoot a rifle, or shotgun. And operate an ATV. I know none of these things.

Even weekend warriors have a range of skills I don't have. I can't mountain climb, or orient myself in the wilderness. I haven't tried to set up a tent since I was a kid, and couldn't now. I wouldn't know which plants are edible, and which are poisonous.

Guys who are handy around the house know a lot more than me. I don't know how to operate a power saw, or fix the plumbing, or rewire an electrical outlet. I don't know how to resurface the driveway.

All sorts of fields of intellectual endeavor where I know next to nothing.

I know little about the law, other than to hire a lawyer if I'm in trouble.

I know little of geology, about the earth's various layers, and so on.

I seem to know a lot of history buffs, but I can't myself as one of them. Half the people who write into this blog seem to know historical facts I'm unacquainted with.

As far as music, I know what I like. But I can't play any instruments, I can't read music, and I certainly can't write it.

I know next to nothing about art, or architecture.

I'm incredibly narrow when it comes to sports. I've made an effort to stay in shape, but never learned how to ski, or play tennis, or wind surf, or skate, or any number of other things. And when the talk turns to football, or basketball, or baseball, I just clam up, because I don't know anything about them.

I don't know how to dress a wound, or set a bone, or jump start a failing heart.

Most of the things mentioned above don't particularly interest me. What's worse is that I somehow never bothered to explore many of the things that do. I just let them slide, as I have so much else in my life.

Evolution was the one subject I studied in college which really set me on fire, and I always meant to pursue that further, but never really did.

I'm interested in zoology, but these days that passion gets indulged in the lowest brow, watching-animal-fights-on-Youtube sort of way.

My knowledge of science is sadly lacking. I always meant to take a look at physics, just to see if it was as difficult as people say, but never got around to it.

My knowledge of highbrow literature is spotty. I always meant to read some of the Great Books, but never got around to it.

Speaking of great books, I've always meant to take a close look at the Bible, but somehow never got around to that, either. My understanding of other religions is similarly lacking.

When you're younger, you can always sort of vaguely plan to do these things in the future. But at 62, I'm forced to be more realistic. These are all things I'll never learn.

Even the stuff I once knew I've forgotten, since I never used it. Calculus, for example. (I just never had the need to calculate the area under a curve in my everyday life.) I can't even speak my first language, Japanese, any more.

Cavemen had to be generalists. They had to know how to hunt, cook (to the extent they did that), make clothing, construct a shelter, travel by the stars, find water, know which plants were edible, etc.

As society has progressed we've all gotten narrower. The nature of modern society is that we all specialize, learn a trade, and rely on others to fill in the rest of our needs. And mostly, I'm just a creature of my time.

Still, I look at my range of interests and they seem particularly narrow. It's a little like the repertoire of someone with Aspergers.

I seem to know a fair number of people with a broader range of interests, and abilities.

I suppose the worst part is that I have no particular interest in changing.