An article about a recent swim meet, for swim fans only:
http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/Commentary/29085.asp?q=The-%22Duel%22
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Martha Nicholas, Part II
A commenter linked this video clip about Martha Nicholas, the sociopath who scammed people into believing that she had cancer, in response to my recent post:
http://www.wric.com/global/Category.asp?c=190525&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=6552713&flvUri=&partnerclipid=
Observe the way Martha's voice almost breaks as she says she may not see her son again. Look at her sincere expression as she speaks about her terminal diagnosis. Admire Martha's bravery as she announces that she is a three time cancer survivor and a current cancer fighter.
These whoppers are delivered with none of the hesitation that a normal person would have when lying.
If you were unfamiliar with sociopaths you'd have had absolutely no reason to doubt her.
http://www.wric.com/global/Category.asp?c=190525&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=6552713&flvUri=&partnerclipid=
Observe the way Martha's voice almost breaks as she says she may not see her son again. Look at her sincere expression as she speaks about her terminal diagnosis. Admire Martha's bravery as she announces that she is a three time cancer survivor and a current cancer fighter.
These whoppers are delivered with none of the hesitation that a normal person would have when lying.
If you were unfamiliar with sociopaths you'd have had absolutely no reason to doubt her.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The fourth Kardashian sister
When I saw this picture of Jersey Shore's Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi in the New York Post this morning, it hit me who she really is.
If she actually were part of that family, her sisters would probably look down on her for being shorter, less intelligent, and so on. But really, the similarities -- especially of character and talent -- are far greater than the differences.
Don't worry, I won't make any portentous comments about how their television shows herald the end of civilization or some such. I actually think it's a positive comment on our society that it can provide such worthless people such a splendid living.
And yes, I am completely ashamed of myself for even knowing who any of them they are.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Presidential campaign
Six weeks ago I announced that I was running for President, and outlined my platform. I listed additional planks here and here.
I must now admit that I am the first candidate in history to announce his candidacy and then just sort of forget about it.
(Ross Perot came close in '92, but, unlike me, he never entirely forgot.)
It's not senility that caused me to forget. It's simply that I've had more important topics to discuss -- like who the prettiest actresses are.
In any case, I am proud to announce that my candidacy has thus far has been untarnished by scandal.
Well, not that proud. It's mainly because my life is so incredibly boring. (If anybody wants to help me get into trouble, I'm open to suggestions.)
I am proud to announce that unlike Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain, my support hasn't gone down one whit from my peak. I have as many people planning to vote for me as I did a month ago.
But, alas, my support has not been growing. So the next step will probably be to decide whom to throw my support to.
I'd be tempted to say Ron Paul because he seems the purest of the bunch; he certainly has the right attitude about downsizing government. But I saw him on Leno Friday night and he was a complete turkey. He kept making lame comments and then smiling goofily as if he thought he was being witty. Leno's audience had been salted with Paul supporters, so they roared with approval no matter what he said. But it was painful to watch.
At one point Leno asked him what he thought about gay marriage, and Paul answered, "Well, I think the government should stop arguing about it." An evasion worthy of Hillary Clinton.
It's hard to get behind Gingrich given his character issues. If Herman Cain seemed to be using his campaign as a way to get laid more, Newt seems to be using his as a way to make more money. Gingrich reportedly tried to turn a recent top level meeting of Republicans in New York City into a book signing.
I've heard any number of people say that it's very important to Newt that he always be the smartest guy in the room; if any of those people liked him, they'd simply have complimented his intelligence. And when the people who dislike you most are the ones who know you best, that's never an encouraging sign.
Jon Hunstman is a little like the class valedictorian -- oops, make that salutorian (sorry, Newt) -- whom nobody notices. He may be the most decent, most diplomatic, most experienced, and most well-versed in foreign affairs. But nobody seems to care; there's just nothing dramatic about him. If he were 6' 3", more masculine-looking, a little less polite, and a little funnier, his candidacy would probably be doing a lot better.
Michelle Bachmann's husband evidently runs a Christian counseling clinic which tries to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. Perhaps while he's at it he can perform another miracle and raise his wife's IQ.
Rick Perry is no better. At the last debate he was said to have done well just because he didn't stumble again, but the kudos he got sounded a little like the kind of approval that accrues to a Downs Syndrome child who has just learned to tie his shoelaces.
Mitt Romney seems like one of those guys from the rich boys' fraternity in Revenge of the Nerds who was always picking on the nerds. His father was a governor, so Mitt deserves the best -- the Presidency!
Still, he's competent, and he'll probably be the last pol standing come spring; in fact, I'd be willing to bet ten thousand dollars on that.
Any of these candidates -- as dumb or sociopathic as they might be -- would make a better President than the current one.
I'll let you know which one I'm backing after he wins the nomination.
I must now admit that I am the first candidate in history to announce his candidacy and then just sort of forget about it.
(Ross Perot came close in '92, but, unlike me, he never entirely forgot.)
It's not senility that caused me to forget. It's simply that I've had more important topics to discuss -- like who the prettiest actresses are.
In any case, I am proud to announce that my candidacy has thus far has been untarnished by scandal.
Well, not that proud. It's mainly because my life is so incredibly boring. (If anybody wants to help me get into trouble, I'm open to suggestions.)
I am proud to announce that unlike Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain, my support hasn't gone down one whit from my peak. I have as many people planning to vote for me as I did a month ago.
But, alas, my support has not been growing. So the next step will probably be to decide whom to throw my support to.
I'd be tempted to say Ron Paul because he seems the purest of the bunch; he certainly has the right attitude about downsizing government. But I saw him on Leno Friday night and he was a complete turkey. He kept making lame comments and then smiling goofily as if he thought he was being witty. Leno's audience had been salted with Paul supporters, so they roared with approval no matter what he said. But it was painful to watch.
At one point Leno asked him what he thought about gay marriage, and Paul answered, "Well, I think the government should stop arguing about it." An evasion worthy of Hillary Clinton.
It's hard to get behind Gingrich given his character issues. If Herman Cain seemed to be using his campaign as a way to get laid more, Newt seems to be using his as a way to make more money. Gingrich reportedly tried to turn a recent top level meeting of Republicans in New York City into a book signing.
I've heard any number of people say that it's very important to Newt that he always be the smartest guy in the room; if any of those people liked him, they'd simply have complimented his intelligence. And when the people who dislike you most are the ones who know you best, that's never an encouraging sign.
Jon Hunstman is a little like the class valedictorian -- oops, make that salutorian (sorry, Newt) -- whom nobody notices. He may be the most decent, most diplomatic, most experienced, and most well-versed in foreign affairs. But nobody seems to care; there's just nothing dramatic about him. If he were 6' 3", more masculine-looking, a little less polite, and a little funnier, his candidacy would probably be doing a lot better.
Michelle Bachmann's husband evidently runs a Christian counseling clinic which tries to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. Perhaps while he's at it he can perform another miracle and raise his wife's IQ.
Rick Perry is no better. At the last debate he was said to have done well just because he didn't stumble again, but the kudos he got sounded a little like the kind of approval that accrues to a Downs Syndrome child who has just learned to tie his shoelaces.
Mitt Romney seems like one of those guys from the rich boys' fraternity in Revenge of the Nerds who was always picking on the nerds. His father was a governor, so Mitt deserves the best -- the Presidency!
Still, he's competent, and he'll probably be the last pol standing come spring; in fact, I'd be willing to bet ten thousand dollars on that.
Any of these candidates -- as dumb or sociopathic as they might be -- would make a better President than the current one.
I'll let you know which one I'm backing after he wins the nomination.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Christopher Hitchens, RIP
http://www.nypost.com./p/news/national/author_christopher_hitchens_dead_I2CJFjBRTGQGhDkbeKPSSL/0
Christopher Hitchens died last night at age 62. He was ferociously intelligent, and a real free thinker. The NY Post obituary, above, gives a sense of him.
You can't possibly be any more iconoclastic than to write an expose on Mother Teresa and call it The Missionary Position.
Addendum, next day: Just read Steve Sailer's dissenting obituary; he does make some telling points about Hitchens' conversion to neocon.
Christopher Hitchens died last night at age 62. He was ferociously intelligent, and a real free thinker. The NY Post obituary, above, gives a sense of him.
You can't possibly be any more iconoclastic than to write an expose on Mother Teresa and call it The Missionary Position.
Addendum, next day: Just read Steve Sailer's dissenting obituary; he does make some telling points about Hitchens' conversion to neocon.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Should I apologize?
Got this comment yesterday on the post about Jennifer Aniston vs. other actresses I consider more attractive:
"Nothing but white women. Not a single Asian, Latina, or African-American female on your list. Interesting."
The commenter brings up an interesting point: should people apologize for who they are attracted to? I had stated clearly in the post that judging looks was subjective as well as silly. Then I showed pictures of eight women I found extremely attractive.
If this commenter asked a gay friend of his to list his eight all-time-most-attractive list, and there were no women, would he tut-tut, "Hmm, not a single woman. Interesting." Or if he asked Robert DeNiro for his list, and DeNiro answered honestly and named eight black women, what would the commenter's response be then?
Isn't the essence of gay liberation that you can't blame someone for something they can't help, i.e., whom they're attracted to? Should that consideration not be extended to others?
When I was in my twenties I managed to date every race and ethnicity. (I wasn't liberal, just adventurous.) At one point I considered Asian women more attractive. These days I tend to find white women more attractive. Should I apologize for that?
The eight women I chose were all slender. Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, and Katherine Heigl just aren't my type. Should I be sorry for that as well?
There is a huge amount of dishonesty when it comes to attraction these days. You constantly see similar lists put out by publications like People and Maxim and GQ which always very carefully include representatives of all races. But is that an honest reflection of their editors' tastes, or are they just trying to be pc?
When Vanessa Williams was selected as the first black Miss America back in 1983, and Suzette Charles was selected as runner up, was it because all the judges that year happened to find them the most attractive and accomplished of all the contestants? Or was it because management had decided ahead of time that it was starting to get embarrassing that in the entire history of the pageant dating from 1921 they had never once selected a black woman?
Every guy has a type he finds most attractive, whether he's honest about it or not. I shouldn't have to apologize for mine any more than a gay man should apologize for being homosexual.
"Nothing but white women. Not a single Asian, Latina, or African-American female on your list. Interesting."
The commenter brings up an interesting point: should people apologize for who they are attracted to? I had stated clearly in the post that judging looks was subjective as well as silly. Then I showed pictures of eight women I found extremely attractive.
If this commenter asked a gay friend of his to list his eight all-time-most-attractive list, and there were no women, would he tut-tut, "Hmm, not a single woman. Interesting." Or if he asked Robert DeNiro for his list, and DeNiro answered honestly and named eight black women, what would the commenter's response be then?
Isn't the essence of gay liberation that you can't blame someone for something they can't help, i.e., whom they're attracted to? Should that consideration not be extended to others?
When I was in my twenties I managed to date every race and ethnicity. (I wasn't liberal, just adventurous.) At one point I considered Asian women more attractive. These days I tend to find white women more attractive. Should I apologize for that?
The eight women I chose were all slender. Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, and Katherine Heigl just aren't my type. Should I be sorry for that as well?
There is a huge amount of dishonesty when it comes to attraction these days. You constantly see similar lists put out by publications like People and Maxim and GQ which always very carefully include representatives of all races. But is that an honest reflection of their editors' tastes, or are they just trying to be pc?
When Vanessa Williams was selected as the first black Miss America back in 1983, and Suzette Charles was selected as runner up, was it because all the judges that year happened to find them the most attractive and accomplished of all the contestants? Or was it because management had decided ahead of time that it was starting to get embarrassing that in the entire history of the pageant dating from 1921 they had never once selected a black woman?
Every guy has a type he finds most attractive, whether he's honest about it or not. I shouldn't have to apologize for mine any more than a gay man should apologize for being homosexual.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
"Famous People with Aspergers Syndrome"
This is a list of people who are thought to have (or had) Aspergers, a mild form of autism:
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/article_2086.shtml
You have to keep in mind that lists like this are usually compiled by people who themselves have Aspergers, or parents of people with Aspergers, so they want to claim as many accomplished people as possible, in order to provide inspirational "role models." (It's a little like listening to homosexuals talk about celebrities: they want to claim all the good-looking ones.)
The list linked above includes Thomas Jefferson, Michelangelo, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Isaac Newton, Beethoven, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, and Mozart, among others.
I looked up a few other similar lists, and many of the same names are included.
Some of the people obviously deserve inclusion on the lists. Nikola Tesla, for instance, was obsessive-compulsive, which people with Aspergers often are, and extremely rigid in his personal life.
But is there really enough known about Michelangelo and his personal life to make that diagnosis? And there was nothing about Benjamin Franklin, a famous ladies' man, to indicate that he was mildly autistic. He was a successful diplomat, a role it would be hard for someone with Aspergers to fill, and he had a sense of humor, which those with Aspergers notoriously lack. It was almost as if they wanted to include him merely because he was so accomplished.
Ditto for Mark Twain: he was known for his sly sense of humor and his insight into others; yet the defining characteristic of Aspergers is an inability to read other people. (I'm guessing Twain was diagnosed as such because he became increasingly reclusive in his old age, but this seemed to be a misanthropy borne of disenchantment and world-weariness rather than an organically asocial nature.)
On the other hand, the list of contemporary people mostly rings true. It has been widely speculated that Bill Gates may have Aspergers; he evidently rocks back and forth in meetings, an autistic trait, and he certainly fulfills the nerdiness quotient. Al Gore was widely described as a "wooden Indian" when he ran for President, his pronouncements certainly seems tone deaf enough, and he is awfully rigid in his world view, most notably when it comes to global warming.
Seeing Keith Olbermann's name on the list was a real "aha" moment. Suddenly his personality made sense to me. Olbermann was despised by his coworkers at ESPN, and his colleagues at MSNBC ended up feeling the same way. He is annoying, and extremely rigid in his thinking. And he is widely described, even by those on his side of the political fence, as "crazy," the most common word used by those who don't understand Aspergers to describe those who have it. I had always assumed he was just a garden variety narcissist, but there are aspects of Aspergers which overlaps with narcissism, most notably in the unwillingness to admit one is wrong. And most intelligent narcissists do a better job of hiding their narcissism than Olbermann does.
Take a look at the list; you may have some aha moments as well.
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/article_2086.shtml
You have to keep in mind that lists like this are usually compiled by people who themselves have Aspergers, or parents of people with Aspergers, so they want to claim as many accomplished people as possible, in order to provide inspirational "role models." (It's a little like listening to homosexuals talk about celebrities: they want to claim all the good-looking ones.)
The list linked above includes Thomas Jefferson, Michelangelo, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Isaac Newton, Beethoven, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, and Mozart, among others.
I looked up a few other similar lists, and many of the same names are included.
Some of the people obviously deserve inclusion on the lists. Nikola Tesla, for instance, was obsessive-compulsive, which people with Aspergers often are, and extremely rigid in his personal life.
But is there really enough known about Michelangelo and his personal life to make that diagnosis? And there was nothing about Benjamin Franklin, a famous ladies' man, to indicate that he was mildly autistic. He was a successful diplomat, a role it would be hard for someone with Aspergers to fill, and he had a sense of humor, which those with Aspergers notoriously lack. It was almost as if they wanted to include him merely because he was so accomplished.
Ditto for Mark Twain: he was known for his sly sense of humor and his insight into others; yet the defining characteristic of Aspergers is an inability to read other people. (I'm guessing Twain was diagnosed as such because he became increasingly reclusive in his old age, but this seemed to be a misanthropy borne of disenchantment and world-weariness rather than an organically asocial nature.)
On the other hand, the list of contemporary people mostly rings true. It has been widely speculated that Bill Gates may have Aspergers; he evidently rocks back and forth in meetings, an autistic trait, and he certainly fulfills the nerdiness quotient. Al Gore was widely described as a "wooden Indian" when he ran for President, his pronouncements certainly seems tone deaf enough, and he is awfully rigid in his world view, most notably when it comes to global warming.
Seeing Keith Olbermann's name on the list was a real "aha" moment. Suddenly his personality made sense to me. Olbermann was despised by his coworkers at ESPN, and his colleagues at MSNBC ended up feeling the same way. He is annoying, and extremely rigid in his thinking. And he is widely described, even by those on his side of the political fence, as "crazy," the most common word used by those who don't understand Aspergers to describe those who have it. I had always assumed he was just a garden variety narcissist, but there are aspects of Aspergers which overlaps with narcissism, most notably in the unwillingness to admit one is wrong. And most intelligent narcissists do a better job of hiding their narcissism than Olbermann does.
Take a look at the list; you may have some aha moments as well.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Sociopath alert: Martha Nicholas
(Martha Nicholas, center)
An article appeared on AOL News today about a woman who pretended to have Stage 4 ovarian cancer, and obtained money from people for her treatment, thereby pulling off a neat sociopathic double play.
Scamming people for money is the province of con men, and con men are usually sociopaths. But getting money under false pretenses by itself does not necessarily mean sociopathy.
Most con men take advantage of others' greed. That doesn't justify what they do, and only makes it slightly more palatable. But if you're ripping off people who are trying to help you, who feel sorry for you, you can't possibly have any shame.
And not feeling any shame is the defining characteristic of a sociopath.
Martha Nicholas almost undoubtedly has Munchausen's Syndrome, which causes people to feign illnesses in order to gain sympathy and attention. Munchausen's is never exhibited by nonsociopaths. Nicholas's "illness" probably started off merely as a ploy for sympathy, since affect-hungry (meaning, hungry for affection) sociopaths have a bottomless need for positive feelings from others, and will do anything to get them.
Imagine that people are holding a large fundraiser in your honor, to help you fight your "illness." You smile bravely and try to fight back the tears as you say that you don't know whether each day will be your last. You're not really sick, you're just a malingerer. Yet you bask in the sympathy and attention you are receiving. Wouldn't you feel just a little bit embarrassed?
Martha Nicholas didn't.
Nicholas’ attorney, Sam Simpson, said, “This was not a scam to rip people off. There is an illness. It’s a mental illness, and I can’t say more about this.”
The mental illness he is referring to is Munchausen's Syndrome. He will undoubtedly evoke it in her defense at her trial, and hope that people don't realize it's just a form of sociopathy.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Why you can't trust polls
Opinions about looks are of course purely subjective, and such polls are by their very nature silly. And merely by commenting on it I am betraying my own innate silliness.
Nonetheless, I have to say it: Jennifer Aniston??
There were women in my class at Harvard, and in each of the three classes behind me, who were better-looking than her. And Harvard, unlike Hollywood, is not known as a place which draws beautiful women. (In fact, it has the opposite reputation.)
I can just hear the argument on the other side: "Oh, but she's got that girl-next-door appeal."
True, she does look like the girl next door. And the girl in the house after that. And the one after that as well.
I have to wonder if Aniston's agent had some sort of arrangement with Men's Health.
Open up any Sunday New York Times magazine, look at the fashion advertisements, and you'll see better-looking women than Aniston. Go to virtually any high school and you'll see prettier girls.
Here are a few examples of actresses I consider more attractive, for comparison's sake.
Grace Kelly is on everybody's top ten list. She may have been a touch on the bland side, but she made up for it by being perfect:
Tippi Hedren was another of Hitchcock's blonde ice queens. She exuded elegance and femininity:
Donna Reed may be best known for her wholesome performance in It's a Wonderful Life, that perennial Christmas favorite, but she won her Best Supporting Oscar for playing a prostitute in From Here to Eternity.
Heather Graham never quite made it from starlet to star, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have one of the sweetest faces of all time:
Mischa Barton never made it past starlet either, and at age 25 it now seems she never will. But she is proof that you don't have to be sane to be beautiful:
Michelle Pfeiffer is supposed to be a marvel of plastic surgery. If so, she ought to give Jennifer the name of her doctor.
Most will disagree with the choice of Karen Allen as one of the all time sexiest, but for me, she was:
Jennifer Aniston is a nice-looking woman. For all I know she's a perfectly nice person as well. But to call her the sexiest woman of all time is almost to mock her.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Keepin' it real
Was just skimming the NY Post when I ran across this picture of fashion designer Valentino:
He is living proof that if you have enough plastic surgery, by a certain age you will look like a Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum replica of yourself.
You occasionally see pictures of celebrities posing next to their likenesses in the museum. As good as some of the reproductions are, you can always tell which one is real.
Well, almost always.
He is living proof that if you have enough plastic surgery, by a certain age you will look like a Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum replica of yourself.
You occasionally see pictures of celebrities posing next to their likenesses in the museum. As good as some of the reproductions are, you can always tell which one is real.
Well, almost always.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Jon Corzine, Part II
Jon Corzine issued a statement today saying that he had no idea what happened to the missing customer funds at MF Global:
"Even when I was at MF Global, my involvement in the firm's clearing, settlement and payment mechanisms and accounting was limited."
A lot of people will assume, naturally enough, that he is lying, and just laying the groundwork for an innocent plea in an upcoming trial.
I actually think it's possible he's telling the truth. This doesn't absolve him of responsibility, of course, as he was in charge of the firm. But he clearly saw himself as the big picture guy - which most CEOs are. And big picture guys tend not to pay much attention to what goes on in the back office.
The fact that Corzine had been both a United States Senator and the Governor of New Jersey since his days as CEO of Goldman Sachs probably put his head even further up in the clouds. It's just not that hard to imagine that a 63-year-old who's friends with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and saw himself as next in line for the Treasury job would not dig in and acquaint himself with the nuts and bolts of clearance and delivery.
When I worked on Wall Street as a bond trader, my responsibilities were limited to buying and selling bonds. But I would have had no clue had someone decided to embezzle the actual physical bonds which I had bought for the firm (back in those days, some bonds were still in actual paper form). I had no knowledge about how the firm's clearing and settlement operations actually worked.
Think of it this way: when you buy or sell a stock in your brokerage account, do you follow up and find out exactly whom you bought it from and make sure that the money which is reported to be in your account is actually there? Or do you just believe your brokerage statement?
Obviously, someone was responsible for transferring the customer funds. And that person should go to jail. Maybe Corzine should too, given that he was theoretically in charge. And it's certainly possible that he knows more than he's saying.
It's also possible he doesn't.
"Even when I was at MF Global, my involvement in the firm's clearing, settlement and payment mechanisms and accounting was limited."
A lot of people will assume, naturally enough, that he is lying, and just laying the groundwork for an innocent plea in an upcoming trial.
I actually think it's possible he's telling the truth. This doesn't absolve him of responsibility, of course, as he was in charge of the firm. But he clearly saw himself as the big picture guy - which most CEOs are. And big picture guys tend not to pay much attention to what goes on in the back office.
The fact that Corzine had been both a United States Senator and the Governor of New Jersey since his days as CEO of Goldman Sachs probably put his head even further up in the clouds. It's just not that hard to imagine that a 63-year-old who's friends with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and saw himself as next in line for the Treasury job would not dig in and acquaint himself with the nuts and bolts of clearance and delivery.
When I worked on Wall Street as a bond trader, my responsibilities were limited to buying and selling bonds. But I would have had no clue had someone decided to embezzle the actual physical bonds which I had bought for the firm (back in those days, some bonds were still in actual paper form). I had no knowledge about how the firm's clearing and settlement operations actually worked.
Think of it this way: when you buy or sell a stock in your brokerage account, do you follow up and find out exactly whom you bought it from and make sure that the money which is reported to be in your account is actually there? Or do you just believe your brokerage statement?
Obviously, someone was responsible for transferring the customer funds. And that person should go to jail. Maybe Corzine should too, given that he was theoretically in charge. And it's certainly possible that he knows more than he's saying.
It's also possible he doesn't.
Nice guys, average guys, and sociopaths (XII)
SITUATION: A young man asks his date up to his apartment after a movie. She coyly asks if she can trust him. How does he respond?
Nice guy: Says, “I don’t know” with his heart pounding and a weak attempt at a devilish smile, wondering if he will be able to work up the nerve to make a pass.
Average guy: Says, “I don’t know,” encouraged by her flirtatious response and hopeful she will go to bed with him.
Sociopath: Says, “I don’t know,” with exaggerated innocence, knowing she will have a hard time evading his date rape-like tactics.
SITUATION: A neighbor’s dog wanders into a 10-year-old’s backyard. What does the child do?
Nice boy: Says, "Good dog," scratches it behind its ears, and tries to get it to play with him. Looks into its eyes and feels that they are "soulful." Feels slightly bereft when it wanders off.
Average boy: Says “Shoo,” not wanting the dog to defecate on his lawn.
Sociopath-in-the-making: Says, “Here boy,” then squirts it with the garden hose. Or he flicks lit matches at it. Finds this highly amusing. Thinks, it serves the stupid dog right for coming into his yard.
SITUATION: A new bodyguard has just been hired by a celebrity. How does he go about his work?
Nice guy: Does his job responsibly and unobtrusively.
Average guy: Does his job responsibly; off the job, drops the celebrity’s name frequently. Enjoys thinking about what a badass he is, although he hopes that he will never be called on to actually put himself on the line with any genuine bad guys who want to hurt the celebrity.
Sociopath: Ignores real threats, but constantly throws his weight around, pushing aside young fans to clear a path for the celebrity. When a paparazzi appears, roughs him up in order to ingratiate himself with the celebrity. Hopes he'll get a chance to use his gun.
Nice guy: Says, “I don’t know” with his heart pounding and a weak attempt at a devilish smile, wondering if he will be able to work up the nerve to make a pass.
Average guy: Says, “I don’t know,” encouraged by her flirtatious response and hopeful she will go to bed with him.
Sociopath: Says, “I don’t know,” with exaggerated innocence, knowing she will have a hard time evading his date rape-like tactics.
SITUATION: A neighbor’s dog wanders into a 10-year-old’s backyard. What does the child do?
Nice boy: Says, "Good dog," scratches it behind its ears, and tries to get it to play with him. Looks into its eyes and feels that they are "soulful." Feels slightly bereft when it wanders off.
Average boy: Says “Shoo,” not wanting the dog to defecate on his lawn.
Sociopath-in-the-making: Says, “Here boy,” then squirts it with the garden hose. Or he flicks lit matches at it. Finds this highly amusing. Thinks, it serves the stupid dog right for coming into his yard.
SITUATION: A new bodyguard has just been hired by a celebrity. How does he go about his work?
Nice guy: Does his job responsibly and unobtrusively.
Average guy: Does his job responsibly; off the job, drops the celebrity’s name frequently. Enjoys thinking about what a badass he is, although he hopes that he will never be called on to actually put himself on the line with any genuine bad guys who want to hurt the celebrity.
Sociopath: Ignores real threats, but constantly throws his weight around, pushing aside young fans to clear a path for the celebrity. When a paparazzi appears, roughs him up in order to ingratiate himself with the celebrity. Hopes he'll get a chance to use his gun.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
How many women have you slept with?
A review of Casanova's memoirs appeared in the New York Times a week ago. The first paragraph:
"PARIS — Giacomo Girolamo Casanova was a gambler, swindler, diplomat, lawyer, soldier, alchemist, violinist, traveler, pleasure seeker and serial seducer."
So far Casanova sounds like an energetic, high-IQ scamp, and possibly even a sociopath. Certainly anyone who worked as a swindler and alchemist had to be dishonest. Gamblers often have low self-control, and soldiering occasionally attracts those who exult in destruction.
But then, halfway through the review, came the following surprise:
"Despite his many adventures, Casanova was best known as a libertine. His first sexual encounter, he wrote, was at 11, when he was groped by the sister of his guardian. During his lifetime he claimed to have seduced 122 women, including a nun."
You'd think that the man whose name is synonymous with seduction would have claimed more than 122 women. Perhaps Casanova was not a sociopath after all, but a (relatively) honest man who enjoyed the company of women.
There are certainly many guys who claim to have slept with far more.
Wilt Chamberlain once famously claimed to have slept with 20,000 women. He is also known for his quote that nobody roots for Goliath, but the two statements are somewhat contradictory: if his first claim was true, he had at least 20,000 fans. But the first claim is of course a lie. In order for that to have occurred he would have had to have slept with 1.37 women a day from the age of 15 up until his autobiography was published in 1991 -- with absolutely no repeats. People who knew him said he was often awkward around women, and spent many of his evenings home alone. The scoring he was best at was on the basketball court, where he once single-handedly racked up 100 points in an NBA game.
A bombastic fellow once told me -- when he was 40 -- that he had slept with 10,000 women. When I did the math for him, he somewhat sheepishly said, "Well, hundreds, anyway."
(I'm not even sure that's true.)
Basically, any guy who throws out a huge round number at you either hasn't kept count or is full of, well, hyperbole.
I once read that the average man sleeps with six women in his lifetime. That number may be dated now that we live in the age of the internet, which allows like-minded people to hook up much more efficiently. (There's also the question of what you consider sleeping with a woman: do oral sex and mutual masturbation count? Some say yes, some no.)
Every now and then it occurs to me that men who stick with the same women in fact are the ones with higher sex drives, since they never get bored. And that men who constantly need new sources of sexual stimulation in order to get excited -- the hard core womanizers, who tend to get bored quickly -- are the wimps. It takes a real stud to be excited by the same woman for decades.
On the other hand, supposedly one in every sixteen men in central Asia is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. He, and his sons and grandsons, all enjoyed absolute power, and enjoyed their absolute power as well. And no one ever accused Genghis of being a wimp. (It's generally considered hard to conquer all of Asia, the entire Middle East, and a third of Europe without a higher than average testosterone level.)
The fact is that most men who can, will sleep with as many women as possible. Think of recent dictators who have done as they pleased in every other regard. (Fidel Castro, or Kim Jong Il, or the Sultan of Brunei.) Their numbers put Casanova to shame. Of course, they're not really competing in the same game. Casanova seduced, they order.
Or consider how guys will take advantage of their fame. (Think Muhammad Ali, or Pablo Picasso, or Warren Beatty, or Mick Jagger.)
Or their money. Billionaires are not generally known for their chastity.
If you're extremely rich and famous and powerful and you have a position which requires a certain amount of decorum, you're almost certain to embarrass yourself. (Sylvio Berlusconi, Dominique Strauss Kahn.)
Men generally behave as evolution has selected them to, to spread their seed as widely as they can.
I have a friend who took a year off from college to work as a steward for a major airline, back in the 1970's. The home base for the stewards and stewardesses was in San Juan, Puerto Rico. My friend had two roommates there. The three of them were just about the only heterosexual guys in a place which was 90% young, single women. So they referred to their base as "Candyland." By my friend's count, one of his roommates slept with 52 women that year, and the other with 70. (My friend slept with 12.)
I know my friend well enough to know he's honest about these things. He's also good-looking and charming. Although he's long since been put out to pasture (i.e., married), in his day he was an unstoppable force. I was talking to him the other day, and the subject turned to women, and his final score, which was roughly 80. He grumbled that it should have been higher, then growled, "And I'm a damn handsome guy, too."
But he shouldn't grumble too much. At 80 women, he is way above the national average. Another 42 and he would have been right up there with Casanova himself.
And those two guys were honest about their numbers.
"PARIS — Giacomo Girolamo Casanova was a gambler, swindler, diplomat, lawyer, soldier, alchemist, violinist, traveler, pleasure seeker and serial seducer."
So far Casanova sounds like an energetic, high-IQ scamp, and possibly even a sociopath. Certainly anyone who worked as a swindler and alchemist had to be dishonest. Gamblers often have low self-control, and soldiering occasionally attracts those who exult in destruction.
But then, halfway through the review, came the following surprise:
"Despite his many adventures, Casanova was best known as a libertine. His first sexual encounter, he wrote, was at 11, when he was groped by the sister of his guardian. During his lifetime he claimed to have seduced 122 women, including a nun."
You'd think that the man whose name is synonymous with seduction would have claimed more than 122 women. Perhaps Casanova was not a sociopath after all, but a (relatively) honest man who enjoyed the company of women.
There are certainly many guys who claim to have slept with far more.
Wilt Chamberlain once famously claimed to have slept with 20,000 women. He is also known for his quote that nobody roots for Goliath, but the two statements are somewhat contradictory: if his first claim was true, he had at least 20,000 fans. But the first claim is of course a lie. In order for that to have occurred he would have had to have slept with 1.37 women a day from the age of 15 up until his autobiography was published in 1991 -- with absolutely no repeats. People who knew him said he was often awkward around women, and spent many of his evenings home alone. The scoring he was best at was on the basketball court, where he once single-handedly racked up 100 points in an NBA game.
A bombastic fellow once told me -- when he was 40 -- that he had slept with 10,000 women. When I did the math for him, he somewhat sheepishly said, "Well, hundreds, anyway."
(I'm not even sure that's true.)
Basically, any guy who throws out a huge round number at you either hasn't kept count or is full of, well, hyperbole.
I once read that the average man sleeps with six women in his lifetime. That number may be dated now that we live in the age of the internet, which allows like-minded people to hook up much more efficiently. (There's also the question of what you consider sleeping with a woman: do oral sex and mutual masturbation count? Some say yes, some no.)
Every now and then it occurs to me that men who stick with the same women in fact are the ones with higher sex drives, since they never get bored. And that men who constantly need new sources of sexual stimulation in order to get excited -- the hard core womanizers, who tend to get bored quickly -- are the wimps. It takes a real stud to be excited by the same woman for decades.
On the other hand, supposedly one in every sixteen men in central Asia is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. He, and his sons and grandsons, all enjoyed absolute power, and enjoyed their absolute power as well. And no one ever accused Genghis of being a wimp. (It's generally considered hard to conquer all of Asia, the entire Middle East, and a third of Europe without a higher than average testosterone level.)
The fact is that most men who can, will sleep with as many women as possible. Think of recent dictators who have done as they pleased in every other regard. (Fidel Castro, or Kim Jong Il, or the Sultan of Brunei.) Their numbers put Casanova to shame. Of course, they're not really competing in the same game. Casanova seduced, they order.
Or consider how guys will take advantage of their fame. (Think Muhammad Ali, or Pablo Picasso, or Warren Beatty, or Mick Jagger.)
Or their money. Billionaires are not generally known for their chastity.
If you're extremely rich and famous and powerful and you have a position which requires a certain amount of decorum, you're almost certain to embarrass yourself. (Sylvio Berlusconi, Dominique Strauss Kahn.)
Men generally behave as evolution has selected them to, to spread their seed as widely as they can.
I have a friend who took a year off from college to work as a steward for a major airline, back in the 1970's. The home base for the stewards and stewardesses was in San Juan, Puerto Rico. My friend had two roommates there. The three of them were just about the only heterosexual guys in a place which was 90% young, single women. So they referred to their base as "Candyland." By my friend's count, one of his roommates slept with 52 women that year, and the other with 70. (My friend slept with 12.)
I know my friend well enough to know he's honest about these things. He's also good-looking and charming. Although he's long since been put out to pasture (i.e., married), in his day he was an unstoppable force. I was talking to him the other day, and the subject turned to women, and his final score, which was roughly 80. He grumbled that it should have been higher, then growled, "And I'm a damn handsome guy, too."
But he shouldn't grumble too much. At 80 women, he is way above the national average. Another 42 and he would have been right up there with Casanova himself.
And those two guys were honest about their numbers.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Fat skeletons
There was an item in the NY Post this morning about a "dating site for big-boned women called 'The Big and the Beautiful'."
There's nothing wrong with either "big" or "plus-sized" as substitutes for "fat." A gentle little euphemism never hurt anyone. And we shouldn't blame people for things they have little control over.
But "big-boned" is just transparently dishonest.
It's as if they're saying, "It's not me that's fat, it's just my bones. You see, they're all about four inches thick, which makes me look fat. But that's just an optical illusion. It's not that I sit around eating bon-bons all day and I'm too lazy to get up off my fat ass and exercise -- it's that my bones are big."
Okay, we get it: you have no responsibility in the matter. And since it's completely out of your hands, there's no judgment called for. And you're not a tub of lard -- you're a tub of bones! Hey, maybe we should just call you bony rather than fat.
Come to think of it, it does seem as if you have a rather thick skull.
There's nothing wrong with either "big" or "plus-sized" as substitutes for "fat." A gentle little euphemism never hurt anyone. And we shouldn't blame people for things they have little control over.
But "big-boned" is just transparently dishonest.
It's as if they're saying, "It's not me that's fat, it's just my bones. You see, they're all about four inches thick, which makes me look fat. But that's just an optical illusion. It's not that I sit around eating bon-bons all day and I'm too lazy to get up off my fat ass and exercise -- it's that my bones are big."
Okay, we get it: you have no responsibility in the matter. And since it's completely out of your hands, there's no judgment called for. And you're not a tub of lard -- you're a tub of bones! Hey, maybe we should just call you bony rather than fat.
Come to think of it, it does seem as if you have a rather thick skull.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Vasily Alekseyev, RIP
Alekseyev embodied the principle that real, usable strength, and pretty Hollywood muscles are not the same thing. At about the same time Alexeyev was winning his second gold medal, Arnold Schwarzenegger was winning the first of his titles as Mr. Olympia. But Schwarzenegger would have been as out of place in an Olympic weight-lifting competition as Alekseyev would have been at a Mr. Olympia pose-off.
At his prime, Alekseyev stood 6'1" and weighed 350. Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and weighed 220.
Schwarzenegger's workout routine was geared towards isolating individual muscles, and growing and sculpting them. Alekseyev's was geared toward being able to lift massive amounts of weight. My guess is that Schwarzenegger would have been lucky to lift half of what Alekseyev did in the Olympic lifts, which require utilizing all of your muscles at once, and having great tendon strength and grip strength. Olympic lifting also requires great coordination and balance, as well as a little bit of speed. Alekseyev almost seemed to use the momentum generated from his huge torso to jerk the weights upward.
Alekseyev's type of strength would have been far more useful, say, on a farm. After Schwarzenegger had driven the small tractor into a ditch because he was admiring his biceps rather than paying attention to where he was going, Alekseyev could have pushed it out.
Of course, Alekseyev would also have been laughed off the stage at Mr. Olympia.
Just maybe not to his face.
Alekseyev reigned at a time when steroids were already extant, especially in the eastern bloc. It would beggar common sense to suggest that one of the Soviet Union's premier athletes was never doped up; but Alekseyev didn't look as if he was. He always looked seven months pregnant, and didn't have the type of bulging, defined muscles, especially the trapezius (between the neck and shoulder) which characterize steroid users. While wearing street clothes he could easily have been mistaken for just another big fatty.
With his huge body, vaguely ethnic look, perpetually unshaven face, and usually disgruntled expression, Alekseyev looked like one of the bad guys in a Schwarzenegger film -- you know, the type who might have given Arnold a decent fight before Arnold sent him flying with one of his trademark haymakers. But had the two ever met, and had the director ever suggested they go at it for real, Vasily Alekseyev would not have been the one to be picked up and sent flying.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Man's best friend
An article on Yahoo News two days ago described how a Utah man who was out duck hunting recently was shot by his own dog when he got out of his canoe to set up some decoys.
The relevant paragraph:
"Apparently excited to join his owner in the marsh, the dog jumped up on the boat's bow and stepped on the gun. The gun was fired, hitting the man in the buttocks with 27 pellets of birdshot."
The man was not seriously injured, thanks to the rubber waders he was wearing.
As shaggy dog stories go, this one certainly beats "The dog ate my homework."
But the article leaves out the most interesting part of the story: how has this changed the man's relationship with his dog? Is he still as affectionate to the hound as he once was? Or is his pet now permanently in the doghouse?
And you have to wonder, the next time the man is out hunting with that dog, will he perhaps feel a vague urge to repay the favor?
The relevant paragraph:
"Apparently excited to join his owner in the marsh, the dog jumped up on the boat's bow and stepped on the gun. The gun was fired, hitting the man in the buttocks with 27 pellets of birdshot."
The man was not seriously injured, thanks to the rubber waders he was wearing.
As shaggy dog stories go, this one certainly beats "The dog ate my homework."
But the article leaves out the most interesting part of the story: how has this changed the man's relationship with his dog? Is he still as affectionate to the hound as he once was? Or is his pet now permanently in the doghouse?
And you have to wonder, the next time the man is out hunting with that dog, will he perhaps feel a vague urge to repay the favor?
What we're fighting for
When I hear the complaints of feminists in this country I am generally unsympathetic. They want to criminalize ogling a woman (which, in their opinion, constitutes harassment). They want to lower the standards for the fireman's test so that more women can pass. They want to make off-color jokes in the workplace punishable by firing.
Can't say I've ever met a feminist whom I've found persuasive, or charming, or even humorous.
In our country, most of the feminists who use words like "exploited" and "abused" to describe their own condition are in fact abusing those words, rendering them almost devoid of meaning.
But there are women in other parts of the world who really are exploited, abused, and oppressed.
A Reuters article on Yahoo News this morning discussed the case of an Afghan woman who had been jailed for adultery after being raped. The big news was actually that she had been pardoned, although there was some question as to whether the pardon had been predicated on her agreeing to marry her rapist.
Question: What kind of backward society throws a woman in jail for the crime of having been raped -- and then insists she marry her rapist?
Answer: The kind the United States fights for. We are waging a war to support the Karzai regime, which has jurisdiction over the courts which threw the woman in jail.
So our troops are effectively fighting and dying in Afghanistan for the right to.....throw women in jail for being raped.
That's what the feminists -- and everybody else -- ought to be complaining about.
Can't say I've ever met a feminist whom I've found persuasive, or charming, or even humorous.
In our country, most of the feminists who use words like "exploited" and "abused" to describe their own condition are in fact abusing those words, rendering them almost devoid of meaning.
But there are women in other parts of the world who really are exploited, abused, and oppressed.
A Reuters article on Yahoo News this morning discussed the case of an Afghan woman who had been jailed for adultery after being raped. The big news was actually that she had been pardoned, although there was some question as to whether the pardon had been predicated on her agreeing to marry her rapist.
Question: What kind of backward society throws a woman in jail for the crime of having been raped -- and then insists she marry her rapist?
Answer: The kind the United States fights for. We are waging a war to support the Karzai regime, which has jurisdiction over the courts which threw the woman in jail.
So our troops are effectively fighting and dying in Afghanistan for the right to.....throw women in jail for being raped.
That's what the feminists -- and everybody else -- ought to be complaining about.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Jon Corzine
Jon Corzine was many levels above me in the corporate structure at Goldman, but since I worked in the same division, I had some contact with him. He struck me as a decent guy in a place which was full of sociopaths.
At the same time, I thought his reputation for brilliance was overblown. On Wall Street, you can get a reputation for being brilliant by merely making a series of yes/no (buy or sell) decisions which happen to go your way.
Corzine was a big, confident, calm, masculine, charismatic guy who had a knack for making people feel appreciated. He was also obviously very smart. But it was his personality, rather than any creative brilliance, that accounted for his success.
There was certainly no questioning his ambition. He reportedly tired of being a U.S. Senator because he was merely one of a hundred, so before his first term in Washington was up he ran for Governor of New Jersey, a position where he would have much more executive power. More recently he reportedly had his eye on the Secretary of the Treasury position, a post he thought he would get if Obama were reelected.
To that end he seemed to want to make a big splash at MF Global, in order to demonstrate that he still had the magic touch. So he made big bets on European sovereign debt, bets which ultimately bankrupted the overleveraged firm. The big question, of course, is whether he was personally responsible for the missing customer funds.
I'd be surprised if he was, since, as I said, he never gave off the smell of dishonesty while at Goldman. But whether he personally made the decision to take money from those accounts or not is somewhat irrelevant, since as the firm's chief he was ultimately responsible for all decisions made there.
Corzine will probably be sentenced to jail, since politically it would be impossible not to do so. If the customer money is recovered -- and maybe even if it's not -- Obama will probably pardon him, perhaps as soon as January of 2013. Corzine was always a big Obama supporter, and while Obama can no longer offer him Treasury, he still owes him, and Obama is all about paying off old supporters.
But even if Corzine gets off with a short stint in jail, his career is over.
A friend, Dave Moriarty, pointed out yesterday that "you are tempting the trading gods when you name your firm 'MF'."
Corzine didn't name the firm, but he definitely had more than his share of hubris. And as the Greeks told us so long ago, that is the best way to anger the gods.
At the same time, I thought his reputation for brilliance was overblown. On Wall Street, you can get a reputation for being brilliant by merely making a series of yes/no (buy or sell) decisions which happen to go your way.
Corzine was a big, confident, calm, masculine, charismatic guy who had a knack for making people feel appreciated. He was also obviously very smart. But it was his personality, rather than any creative brilliance, that accounted for his success.
There was certainly no questioning his ambition. He reportedly tired of being a U.S. Senator because he was merely one of a hundred, so before his first term in Washington was up he ran for Governor of New Jersey, a position where he would have much more executive power. More recently he reportedly had his eye on the Secretary of the Treasury position, a post he thought he would get if Obama were reelected.
To that end he seemed to want to make a big splash at MF Global, in order to demonstrate that he still had the magic touch. So he made big bets on European sovereign debt, bets which ultimately bankrupted the overleveraged firm. The big question, of course, is whether he was personally responsible for the missing customer funds.
I'd be surprised if he was, since, as I said, he never gave off the smell of dishonesty while at Goldman. But whether he personally made the decision to take money from those accounts or not is somewhat irrelevant, since as the firm's chief he was ultimately responsible for all decisions made there.
Corzine will probably be sentenced to jail, since politically it would be impossible not to do so. If the customer money is recovered -- and maybe even if it's not -- Obama will probably pardon him, perhaps as soon as January of 2013. Corzine was always a big Obama supporter, and while Obama can no longer offer him Treasury, he still owes him, and Obama is all about paying off old supporters.
But even if Corzine gets off with a short stint in jail, his career is over.
A friend, Dave Moriarty, pointed out yesterday that "you are tempting the trading gods when you name your firm 'MF'."
Corzine didn't name the firm, but he definitely had more than his share of hubris. And as the Greeks told us so long ago, that is the best way to anger the gods.
"You'll just feel a little pinch"
Every single doctor or nurse or dentist who's ever jabbed a needle into me has always said those exact same words beforehand. They must all learn from the same playbook.
I understand why "pinch" is their word of choice. It certainly sounds less dire than, "Brace yourself, I'm about to plunge this big needle through your skin and into your flesh." A "pinch" is something a girl might do to you if she doesn't know how to fight and inflict any real damage. A "pinch" of vodka is a trace amount that you theoretically won't even feel. (Of course, I've never heard anyone ask for a pinch of liquor who didn't really want a big dollop.)
But the fact is, "pinch" is not an accurate description of how a needle feels. A "small stabbing" would convey the actual feeling more accurately. I have to admit, though, that once my expectations have been managed so adroitly, I am more relaxed.
None of this is to suggest that all of these doctors and nurses are not perfectly pleasant. The nurse who administered my shingles vaccine yesterday even added, "This one doesn't even go into the muscle, it's just a sub-cute." Which I guess is the cute way of saying sub-cutaneous.
In fact, this particular nurse was not only pleasant, she was insightful as well: she evidently has the ability to recognize a coward when she sees one.
I understand why "pinch" is their word of choice. It certainly sounds less dire than, "Brace yourself, I'm about to plunge this big needle through your skin and into your flesh." A "pinch" is something a girl might do to you if she doesn't know how to fight and inflict any real damage. A "pinch" of vodka is a trace amount that you theoretically won't even feel. (Of course, I've never heard anyone ask for a pinch of liquor who didn't really want a big dollop.)
But the fact is, "pinch" is not an accurate description of how a needle feels. A "small stabbing" would convey the actual feeling more accurately. I have to admit, though, that once my expectations have been managed so adroitly, I am more relaxed.
None of this is to suggest that all of these doctors and nurses are not perfectly pleasant. The nurse who administered my shingles vaccine yesterday even added, "This one doesn't even go into the muscle, it's just a sub-cute." Which I guess is the cute way of saying sub-cutaneous.
In fact, this particular nurse was not only pleasant, she was insightful as well: she evidently has the ability to recognize a coward when she sees one.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
A telling ratio
A front page article in this morning's NY Times detailed how Urban Meyer, the new football coach at Ohio State, is getting a base salary of $4 million, plus yearly incentives that could total another $700,000. The Times pointed out that Meyer is making more than three times what OSU President, E. Gordon Gee, made in 2010.
I've long thought that the quality of the education you receive at a college is roughly in inverse proportion to the ratio of the head football coach's salary to the university president's salary. There are certainly exceptions: Cal, the University of Texas, and the University of Michigan are all fine schools, yet all pay top dollar to their football coaches (in all three cases, much more than the university president gets).
There is an argument to be made in favor of paying a handsome salary to a coach: a big time football program can receive a lot of money from television networks and actually turn a profit that way.
There is also an argument to be made that most university presidents themselves are empty suits, whose jobs consist primarily of meeting, greeting, and fund-raising. From what I've seen, the main qualifications for being a university president are a fine head of white hair, nice elocution, and gracious manners. Presidents are the equivalent of show captains, those fellows who have nothing to do with actually running an ocean liner but who don captains' uniforms and go around greeting the passengers. (The dean of the faculty might be considered the equivalent of the fellow who actually steers the boat.)
So perhaps the better ratio would be the football coach's salary to the average associate professor's salary.
But either ratio is a fair inverse approximation of how much emphasis is placed upon academics at any given college.
I've long thought that the quality of the education you receive at a college is roughly in inverse proportion to the ratio of the head football coach's salary to the university president's salary. There are certainly exceptions: Cal, the University of Texas, and the University of Michigan are all fine schools, yet all pay top dollar to their football coaches (in all three cases, much more than the university president gets).
There is an argument to be made in favor of paying a handsome salary to a coach: a big time football program can receive a lot of money from television networks and actually turn a profit that way.
There is also an argument to be made that most university presidents themselves are empty suits, whose jobs consist primarily of meeting, greeting, and fund-raising. From what I've seen, the main qualifications for being a university president are a fine head of white hair, nice elocution, and gracious manners. Presidents are the equivalent of show captains, those fellows who have nothing to do with actually running an ocean liner but who don captains' uniforms and go around greeting the passengers. (The dean of the faculty might be considered the equivalent of the fellow who actually steers the boat.)
So perhaps the better ratio would be the football coach's salary to the average associate professor's salary.
But either ratio is a fair inverse approximation of how much emphasis is placed upon academics at any given college.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
