The World Happiness Report

An article, The 15 happiest countries in the world, appeared on Bloomberg this morning:

Chances are, if you live in the U.S., you feel worse today than you did 10 years ago. Don’t worry, it’s not you. This is a national problem: America’s rank on the happiness scale is falling.

When it comes to happiness, the U.S. ranked 19th among the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2016, down from third among 24 countries on a similar measure in 2007, according to the World Happiness Report, produced by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and funded by the Ernesto Illy Foundation.

Money, at least in the U.S., doesn’t buy happiness, the report found. Even as the country pulled off an economic turnaround, with increases in income and unemployment falling to historic lows, Americans are becoming less happy...

The report is based on an annual survey of 1,000 people in more than 150 countries that simply asks them to rank, on a scale of 0 to 10, whether they are living their best life.

Researchers then use six measures to try to understand the results: gross domestic product per capita, life expectancy, support from relatives or friends, charitable giving, freedom to make life choices, and perceived levels of government and corporate corruption.

Rankings are created using the average of three years of surveys. Nordic countries, of course, were the happiest. In the list covering 2014-16, Norway moved into the top spot as the happiest country in the world, followed by Denmark and Iceland. The least happy nations: Syria, Tanzania, Burundi and the Central African Republic. The U.S. ranked 14th on the most recent rankings average....

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the editors of the report, suggested five means by which to improve social trust: campaign finance reform, policies aimed at reducing income inequality (such as public financing of health), improved social relations between native born and immigrant Americans, working to move past the fear of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and improved access to high-quality education.

The political nature of Sachs' report is transparent: his suggestions for increased happiness are basically a Democratic wish list. And, like any good liberal, he completely ignores the most salient factor distinguishing the happiest countries from the unhappiest ones: their demographics. 

Lists like this pop up from time to time, and I always wonder, how exactly do they measure happiness? I've seen similar lists where people are actually asked whether they're happy or not. But how can people possibly know -- in any remotely objective sense -- how their level of emotional happiness compares to others' unless they've inhabited other peoples' minds? 

What these happiness reports fail to take into account is human nature. You can put two people into the exact same situation, and they would experience different levels of happiness from it. Some peoples' mental equilibrium dials seem to have been set to "happy," and others to "disgruntled." That's just their nature. 

In fact, one's baseline happiness probably has an inverse relationship with one's quality of life. If you're the type to be satisfied with whatever nature has provided, you're less likely to work hard at improving GDP, making headway in medicine, and maintaining a functioning, democratic form of government which guarantees freedoms for its citizens. 

Conversely, those most easily disgruntled would be more likely to work to improve their lot. 

It also seems a little ironic that Scandinavians, who have always had a reputation for being morose -- remember those dour Swedes with their shortened days and the world's highest suicide rate? -- now rank highest in "happiness." 

If you were to call this a "quality of life" index, using the same criteria, its conclusions would be more credible. Otherwise, it seems silly.

Meanwhile, in the interests of further equality -- which seems to be one of Sachs' goals -- Norway should voluntarily decrease its level of happiness by following the lead of its neighbor Sweden and import more Muslims. 

Samantha Ponder strikes out against sexism

Pregnant ESPN reporter Samantha Ponder was in the news this past week for having put the trolls who criticized her appearance in their place.

This article from Womanista.com titled ESPN Reporter Samantha Ponder Shuts Down Trolls Who Criticized Her Body While Pregnant struck a typical tone:

If there's one thing Samantha Ponder won't stand for it is the ridiculous hate from body shamers who are calling out her appearance during her pregnancy.

The 31-year-old sportscaster is expecting her second child with her star athlete husband, Christian Ponder. After receiving multiple nasty comments about her appearance, Ponder finally hit her limit this week, according to Us Weekly.

“Getting sexist/vulgar tweets abt my job/appearance while I’m unable to see my own feet & covered in toddler pee is somethin else I tell ya,” she tweeted Tuesday, March 7.

The barrage of hateful comments sprung up after it was announced that Ponder may be replacing Chris Berman for Sunday NFL Countdown.

“When I can Tell you Women’s Rights, you can tell me about Sports. I never carried a Child, you Never carried a Football,” one hater wrote.

Another came in hot with a simple, “no talent.”

Even though she's had to deal with a lot of unbelievable hate, she's also received sweet messages of support from fans and women who look up to her for paving the way.

“You are an inspiration for young girls like my daughter. She is now a sophomore in college dreaming of being on the sideline,” one man wrote.

Another fan added to the conversation saying, “You inspire me everyday! I really look up to you & you make me realize my dreams are totally possible!! You’re Super Woman!"

Making fun of a woman's appearance because she is pregnant is unquestionably rude, though the two critical Tweets that Womanista.com cited had nothing to do with Ponder's appearance. 

But the entire premise of Womanista's position that Ponder is taking a stance against sexism seems to be built on shaky ground. 

ESPN has always been a liberal organization politically, as one might expect of a channel that focuses on sports dominated by blacks. (They have advocated for more gun control, praised Colin Kaepernick's stance, sided with BLM, given Caitlyn Jenner a heroism award, threatened Chris Broussard for taking a religious view of homosexuality, and fired Curt Schilling for criticizing radical Islam.)

So, one would think they would also be horrified by the sexism implicit in judging women by their looks. After all, they have proven reliably politically correct on every other issue.

But Google "ESPN babes" and you'll come across this article. (I had the feeling that the kind of people who are ESPN fans would use the word "babes" to refer to women.) Take a look at their selection of female sportscasters and judge for yourself what the most important prerequisite is for being a female sportscaster at liberal ESPN seems to be.

Does anyone doubt that Ponder's looks were central to why she was hired in the first place? Here's Samantha:

If you Google-image Samantha Ponder, you won't find a single shot -- not even in her "informal" at home shots -- where her hair, eyebrows, eye makeup, and lipstick have not been done up perfectly.

(By the way, does it not seem that an argument's credibility these days is in inverse proportion to the number of times it relies on using the word "hate?" The Womanista.com article uses either "hate" or "hateful" four separate times in their brief, eleven sentence article.)

It's not as if ESPN is an outlier here. All MSM organizations take politically correct positions, and rail against sexism in tones of horrified outrage whenever the issue arises. But when it comes to whom they hire as on camera talent, well, looks are paramount.

When it comes to the dramas they air, it's the same story: the female romantic interest is, almost always, a beauty. And when it comes to the commercials they run, the spokesmodels are also almost always beauties.  

So doesn't that make their stance against those horrible sexists who would judge a woman by her looks just a little bit hypocritical? 

Now, just to be clear: I'm not defending the trolls who razzed Ponder for her appearance. They are, undoubtedly, idiots. (The fact that they watch ESPN in the first place is probably further evidence of that.)

And Ponder herself is not some card-carrying third-wave feminist; she's just a cute girl trying to make her way in the world and doing the best she can for herself. It's natural enough for anyone who's been insulted to lash back. It was the media, more than her, who politicized this incident.

But let's also be clear about exactly where Samantha Ponder stands in the grand scheme of things: she is not a victim of sexism.

She is its beneficiary.

A resemblance

I just happened to see this picture of Katie Ledecky today --

-- and it struck me whom she resembles: Olga Korbut.

Each woman is among the greatest ever in her sport (and Ledecky is far from through).

But while they resemble each other facially, and both have huge smiles, they have completely different builds. Korbut was a pixie-like 4'11" and 84 pounds at her peak, as befits a champion gymnast, whereas Ledecky is listed at six feet on the Stanford roster and looks as if she weighs roughly 160.

(It would have been so much cooler if her Stanford bio had merely said "Katie is a passable distance freestyler" rather than exhaustively listing her every last accolade; it's not as if anyone who'd ever go to that website might possibly be unaware of her accomplishments.)

Ledecky, according to Wikipedia, is a quarter Czech, a quarter Jewish, and half Irish. Korbut was born in western Belarus, near the Polish and Lithuanian borders. So their ethnicities are not identical. But from the neck up, they look as if they could have been sisters.

Why doesn't sociopathy spread like wildfire?

A commenter, "GT," noticed that Casey Anthony had broken her silence recently and posted a link to an article about her on the post about her here.

He mentioned that she is "still 100% grade A sociopath," and gave some examples to prove his point.

I agreed, and pointed out that my favorite line in the article he linked was:

"Caylee would be 12 right now. And would be a total badass" [said Anthony.]

I then pointed out that Anthony was actually right: a girl whose only influence is her sociopathic mother is almost certainly going to turn out to be a sociopath herself, and Caylee probably would have been a badass.

GT then asked an interesting question:

I hope for Caylee's sake her grandmother would have provided a positive female role model. Caylee's grandmother was the one that reported her missing when the mother (Casey) kept making excuses about her daughters location. I could envision that Caylee would have grown up looking for a mother's love but never finding it.

On to a more specific point that I have been thinking about for awhile. If sociopaths are created, which I think in the vast majority of cases they are, what keeps the sociopathic population at 3%? It seems that it would start to snowball after awhile; like a virus. A sociopathic father or Mother could create several sociopathic offspring and so on and so on... Would love to hear your thoughts.

I agree that sociopaths are for the most part created by their environments, so I completely agree with the premise of GT's question.

I wrote here about how sociopathy is in fact evolutionarily adaptive as long as they're a small fraction of the population to fly beneath the radar. So one force that keeps sociopathy in stasis is that if they ever became a sizable fraction of the population, people would get wise to their ways, and they wouldn't be able to get away with their devious tactics as easily.

But how exactly does the proportion of sociopaths in a population stay in check? Part of the answer must lie in the strong natural maternal instinct: unless that instinct is somehow abused and twisted at an early age, it will emerge. It seems quite possible for orphaned girls to feel affectionate and protective toward their children even if they themselves did not receive much love as children. We see that protectiveness throughout the animal kingdom, and if that instinct were not powerful, species would simply go extinct.

Mankind's natural state simply doesn't seem to be sociopathy. Only extreme circumstances can foster it. Even if you have one parent who is a sociopath, having another who is not could conceivably prevent it.

Another part of the equation is that those females -- like Casey Anthony -- who lack the maternal instinct are less likely to have children who survive to reproductive age themselves. You needn't even be murderous for that to happen; merely careless and neglectful.

We're lucky that sociopathy does not generally spread beyond 3% of the population, but in fact, it's not just luck. Nature has predisposed us -- especially mothers -- toward empathy, and that's what keeps the proportion of sociopaths at a relatively manageable level.

Evolution gave us certain instincts for good reason; and the same instincts which help us survive as a species seem to keep sociopathy to a minimum.

Borderline personality disorder

I'd never had a good handle on borderline personality disorder before, it had always sounded like a vague, fall-between-the-cracks description of difficult people who didn't quite fit the textbook definitions of other disorders. (That impression was fostered partly by its name.)

But I've been reading about it, and thinking about it, and now see it as a very distinct, recognizable syndrome. And, as always, having known a couple of people who clearly have the disorder has made it come much more alive for me.

If you're unfamiliar with the disorder, you might mistake borderlines for sociopaths, because of their ability to self-righteously justify themselves and their unbridled fury when they feel they've been crossed. Or, you might mistake them for narcissists, for the same reason.

But there are some major differences between sociopaths and borderlines. Borderlines only become combative when they think they're right. (Of course, their ability to convince themselves they're in the right is often astounding.) Sociopaths often have that same feeling of righteousness; but they will follow a self-serving course of action even when they know it's wrong.

The end result may be the same; but with borderlines, it's less a matter of willful evil, and more as if they have a near-psychosis that convinces them they are in the right. (This "psychosis," of course, never seems to convince them they are in the wrong, which, admittedly, works out quite conveniently for them.)

Another difference: borderlines aren't gleefully evil the way sociopaths are: they don't, for instance, lie purely for the pleasure of fooling others. Nor are they casually sadistic the way sociopaths are.

Borderlines don't have the same overwhelming ego of sociopaths, in fact may often have the opposite: poor self-images. And they tend to be forthright about their insecurities -- whether about their looks, their intelligence, or even their character.

Borderlines tend to see things in black and white. They are often completely incapable of seeing another's point of view. This is a trait they share with narcissists. (Try having a political discussion with a borderline sometime.)

Borderline personalities are extremely emotionally unstable. As the National Institute for Mental Health says:

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious mental disorder marked by a pattern of ongoing instability in moods, behavior, self-image, and functioning. These experiences often result in impulsive actions and unstable relationships. A person with BPD may experience intense episodes of anger, depression, and anxiety that may last from only a few hours to days.

Here, too, borderline personality disorder resembles another syndrome, bipolar disorder, in its extreme mood swings. It's certainly easy to mistake one for the other. But I've known people with both, and there seems to be a certain self-serving aspect to the borderline personalities I've known that's missing in bipolars.

Also, with the bipolars, there seems to be almost a certain orderliness to their moods: they're either up or down, and when in either of those states, their behavior can be fairly easily predicted. With borderlines, they can go veering off into a different mood based on an innocuous comment, at a moment's notice.

And, while a bipolar may stay depressed for days or even weeks, they will generally not stay angry for days, and are generally not filled with grudges. Borderlines have a lot more free-floating rage; sometimes they seem like walking temper tantrums in search of a cause. (And their anger is all the scarier because it is so consuming, and uninhibited in its expression.)

Another thing most of the literature on borderlines emphasizes is that they have an intense fear of abandonment. This may not be apparent at first, but one of the ways it can manifest itself is by the borderline trying to drive a wedge between their partner and anyone else they perceive to threaten their relationship.

One of the subtexts in most descriptions of BPD is that there seems to be an undercurrent of hysteria running through a lot of the behavior described. Sure enough, females are diagnosed with the disorder three times as often as men.

People who are in a relationship with borderlines often end up with a modified version of Stockholm Syndrome, tiptoeing around and constantly trying to mollify them in order to avoid confrontation and the inevitable fury that follows.

With the bipolars I've known, even though they are at times hard to deal with, I've always been left with the sense that underneath it all, they're generally decent people. I haven't necessarily gotten that sense with the borderlines; this may be partly why the syndrome is classified as a "Cluster B personality disorder."

Jenna Jameson, revealed

It's become a standard joke that all actresses in porn films, no matter how insignificant their careers, are referred to as "porn stars." Jenna Jameson actually has been a star in that field: even if you don't watch porn, it's near impossible not to be aware of who she is, since she gets so much press.

(It's hard not to think that's because a lot of reporters are inveterate porn watchers.)

Two weeks ago the NY Post ran an article about her, Jenna Jameson goes on rant slamming Muslims and defending KKK. She evidently said there was a "Muslim rape epidemic."

Jameson, who is now engaged to an Israeli jeweler, Lior Bitton, and has converted from Catholicism to Judaism, compared Islam to the KKK:

“Do the klu klux klan follow a religion that orders the death of apostates? When was the last time we saw a klan member blow up infidels?,” she tweeted.

The star, who is due to give birth in April, has lashed out at Muslims before. In January, she drew fire for tweeting that Islam “promotes child rape, female genital mutilation, butchering non believers and polygamy.”

To say that the KKK is not as violent as radical Muslims hardly seems like a "defense" of them. And what Jameson said about Islam is true, even if such honesty is usually not a good career move. 

The article featured this recent, virtually unrecognizable picture of her:

Jameson does seem to have gone though a lot of changes in appearance over the years. Her pictures tell the story of someone who's never been happy with herself, despite having starting out as a beautiful woman. Here she is early in her career:

She looks vapid, and her implants are too big, but she's undeniably beautiful. And she seems to be glowing with health.

A little while later she became borderline anorexic:

When someone is constantly changing her appearance, it usually signals a deeper discontent. Here's Jameson with some ear piercings:

She has also decided to adorn herself with tattoos: 

As she got older, she seemed to acquire the soulless look of a sex worker:

And finally, as she slid further into drug addiction and alcoholism, she let herself get fat, even by the standards of pregnant women. 

Jameson always presented herself as nothing more than a sex object. She would put on a lascivious look, a sort of half sneer meant to convey sexual desire, or possibly sexual invitation. Maybe she figured that as a porn star this was how she was supposed to appear. But it came across desperate and pathetic. And obscene, in both senses of the word. 

And it made me wonder about her childhood. The cliche about women who become strippers -- or porn stars, or prostitutes -- is that they come from broken homes and dysfunctional backgrounds. As is often the case, the "Early life" section of Jameson's Wikipedia bio held the key:

Jenna Marie Massoli was born in Las Vegas, Nevada. Her father, Laurence Henry Massoli, was a police officer at the las Vegas Sheriff's Department and program director for KSNV-DT. Her mother, Judith Brooke Hunt, was a Las Vegas showgirl who danced in the Folies Bergere show at the Tropicana Resort & Casino. Her mother died of melanoma on February 20, 1976, two months prior to her daughter's second birthday. The cancer treatments bankrupted the family and they relocated in Nevada, Arizona, and Montana, usually living in a trailer home or living with her paternal grandmother. She and her older brother, Tony were raised Catholic, though they were essentially left to parent each other.

So Jenna grew up missing -- and undoubtedly romanticizing -- the mother she never knew, the glamorous showgirl in the Folies Bergere. Wikipedia does not explain why the family moved around so much; you'd think a police officer would be able to provide at least a middle class existence for his family. But the bit about how Jenna and her brother were "essentially left to parent each other" makes it sound as if the father was mostly absent as well.

So Jameson's early life, right down to the trailer parks, was straight from that stripper playbook.

It was nobody's fault that Jameson grew up without a mother, an anchor to guide her, a steadying influence, and, mostly, someone to love her. But her entire life has reflected that early loss. 

I never would have expected to feel this way, but I actually ended up feeling sorry for her. 

Jameson is undoubtedly a difficult woman, and probably impossible to live with. But she doesn't deserve the bad press she's gotten recently, especially since what she said about Islam is largely true. It does promote a culture that's abusive to women. 

So maybe all those reporters who are taking such glee in her downfall and simultaneously preening about their political correctness should take a hard look at themselves. They might realize that they're mostly just angry that they never got a girl who looked like Jenna. At least not the early version. 

The best way to understand sociopaths

If you want to study sociopathy, look at how serial killers behave when they're not indulging their deadly hobby. It's the perfect controlled experiment, since there's absolutely no doubt that they're sociopaths, and their sociopathy never leaves them. (Being a sociopath is a 24 hour occupation.) And their psychology is the basically same as other sociopaths, except for the little quirk that killing helps them get off sexually.

So how do such sociopaths act when they're not killing?

Look at Ted Bundy, working at that suicide hotline. If you heard about someone you knew nothing else about who worked at a suicide hotline, you might think, "Hmm, nice guy....nicer than me anyway; personally I wouldn't want to spend the time working at one of those places. I'd find it a little depressing to have to talk people out of committing suicide all the time."

But Ted, obviously, didn't feel sympathy for those people; that wasn't his nature. In fact, he probably would have enjoyed killing them himself, if he could have gotten away with it. He just wanted to savor their pain while posing as a do-gooder. Not much information ever came out about how he performed in that capacity, but it's hard not to suspect that he subtly encouraged some of them to go ahead and kill themselves.

Because of Bundy, we better understand the kind of emotional falsity that sociopaths engage in and the real motivations of some who do ostensibly noble work.

(Likewise, you'd think that those who adopt rescue dogs are good-hearted folk. But animal shelters evidently have to be on the lookout for people who come in too frequently looking for new pets. Certain people -- whose psychology is not dissimilar to Bundy's -- will adopt a pet, torture it and kill it, then come in to ask for a new one, claiming that the previous pet died of natural causes.)

Look at Dennis Rader, the BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill) killer. He worked as, among other jobs, as a dogcatcher and compliance officer in park City, Kansas. He was married with two children, President of the church council of the local Lutheran Church, and a Cub Scout troop leader. And he had a degree from Wichita State University in justice administration.

Sounds like a pillar of the community. But sociopaths will often make more of an effort than most to appear as such, to disguise their true natures. And Rader was known in his community as a stickler for the rules, one who would his job to harass people. One neighbor said that he euthanized her dog for no reason. And he would impose penalties for infractions as minor as letting grass grow too long.

Meanwhile, Rader himself was the BTK serial killer, strangling and killing innocent women for his own sexual pleasure. But god forbid your grass was half an inch above regulation height. That's sociopathy for you: self-righteously condemning others for minor infractions while doing far, far worse themselves.

When you see extremely hypocrisy, beware.

John Wayne Gacy was another stalwart member of his community. He managed three Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants and was a vice president of the local Jaycees. Despite being primarily homosexual, Gacy got married and had two children. He even had his picture taken with First Lady Rosalyn Carter.

In Gacy's case, the effort expended to appear "normal" was part of his sociopathic nature. He later characterized the period of his life when he was married and managing those KFC franchises as the "best part" of his life.

When you see someone for whom appearances are all, beware.

David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam, provides the perfect case study of a sociopath who later "reforms." We know that sociopaths never stop being sociopaths, so Berkowitz's new pose, as a man of God, is illuminative. He is now a preacher who ministers to other prisoners and, when given the chance, talks about all the good works he does. It is a peculiarly sociopathic quirk to broadcast one's virtuousness, and as always with sociopaths, Berkowitz is a little heavy-handed about letting us know how good he now is.

It's also a sociopathic quirk to think that people will believe you when you claim to have turned over a new leaf.

So if you encounter a self-proclaimed man of God who admits that he was once a sinner, but is now redeemed, beware.

There's a whole field of study here. When serial killers act in certain ways when not plying their distinctive trade, if you meet someone else with those same behavior patterns, beware. Chances are he's not a serial killer, but he could well be a sociopath.

Trump's speech

Trump's address to Congress certainly got a good reception. The NY Post, not unexpectedly, gave it rave reviews, and even the NY Times headline said that he "softened his tone" a bit. (Which, for them, constitutes a rave review.)

The stock market has certainly greeted it enthusiastically, with the Dow currently up approximately up 280 points on the day as of this writing. For a long time the financial press was talking about the possibility of the Dow passing the 20,000 milestone, and a few weeks later we've already passed the 21,000 mark, another milestone.

It must be frustrating for the Democrats to see how enthusiastically the market has greeted Trump's Presidency. The current rally dates from exactly November 9th, the day after the election. The vast majority of prominent money managers who are Democrats have spoken of how Trump would bring economic disaster, and most have voiced corresponding market views.

The market, however, hasn't cooperated.

It was good to see Nancy Pelosi and some of the other Democratic women in the chamber appropriately dressed in "suffragette white." (You do know that Trump plans to take the vote away from women, don't you?)

Okay, now for the speech itself. First, the good stuff:

The Obama administration always seemed to regard police as the enemy, so a shift in tone there was long overdue.

And let's hope that the administration's replacement for Obamacare works out. That program was a disaster for most people who weren't on Medicaid, and certainly allowing interstate competition is a good idea. But only time will tell if Trump can bring down medical costs for the average family; so far no President has been able to do that.

Last night was the first mention of a "merit-based" as opposed to "family-based" immigration program. That sounds like a good idea; after all, a country is no more than the sum of its people. The concept of America as a big dumping ground for misfits who've managed to screw up their own countries has always seemed self-defeating.

Now, the bad stuff:

While tightening immigrations is a sensible idea, the VOICE program seems a little strained (like its acronym, which stands for Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement). The fact that some immigrants commit crime, including violent crime, is a factor which should be weighed when considering immigration policy overall, but VOICE seems to create a special class of victims, just as "hate crimes" statues do. Aren't regular laws good enough in both cases?

("Victims Of Illegal Chicano Evil-doers" would have been more straightforward.)

It also seemed that Trump went a little overboard with bringing in special visitors to the gallery. This is a long standing Presidential tradition meant to humanize a sitting President's programs. But it's always seemed a cheap way to gain support. It's almost as if the President is portraying his political opponents as people who would root against the unfortunate person in the gallery. ("Go ahead, I dare you to jeer that poor girl in the wheelchair, or the widow of that Navy SEAL.")

Obama did this more than any previous President, but even he never brought in four different sets of people for a single speech.

But it was still enlightening to see Nancy Pelosi and a few others refuse to stand and cheer for the Navy SEAL widow. (It almost made me admire Pelosi; it takes a certain courage to root against mom and apple pie.)

Anyway, I support most of Trump's policies, so it was good to see him get a chance to speak directly to the public without the media interpreting his words for the rest of us and telling us what to think.

Update, same day: turns out the initial reports may be wrong, and there's some question as to whether Pelosi (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Keith Ellison) stood and clapped or not. It may be that they stood and clapped for the first, but not the second round of cheering.

The husband of an Aspie weighs in

Two days ago I got a comment from someone married to an Aspie; he captured the syndrome perfectly:

Stumbled upon this blog... very enlightening reading the comments section. I have an Aspie son, guess they call it autism spectrum disorder now... I also have, IMHO, an Aspie wife... no formal diagnosis, nor will one ever come. When we go to professionals, they always ask, "is there someone with it in the family?"... I brought it up to her that she might have it ONE time, and that her Dad even might have it, and she was pissed and she responded that she thinks I have it (LOL).

I have read that female Aspies tend to integrate into society better... they learn the tricks to fit in more readily than males. This would be true for the social version of my wife... but at home she seems to almost be a different person. Here are my wife's "symptoms" for reference:

1. Takes no blame
2. Never cries
3. Loves animals more than people as evidenced by her own admission, and her actions (we have a veritable zoo at our house, she's obsessed with collecting them)
4. Extremely repetitive
5. Frequently uses the wrong words in a sentence... that almost sound correct
6. Terrible grammar
7. Horrible math skills
8. Does not get sarcasm... which sucks because I am a sarcastic bastard.
9. Is flustered to the extreme with clutter... anything laying on the kitchen counter that doesn't belong there can infuriate her
10. Tells the same anecdotal stories over and over, and expects full attention
11. no ability to empathize with me or our son
12. cannot fathom basic logical concepts, she just expects things to work the way she expects them, in spite of logic.
13. had a lonely childhood, trouble making friends, ended up hanging with the foreign exchange students... other outcasts...
14. no concept of money matters, what things cost, budgeting, etc... thinks if you want something, just buy it.
15. takes any scrutiny as intense criticism, like she might say, "how was dinner?" and I might say, "ok, but I wouldn't want to eat it again if I had a choice," and her response is, "then you can make your own damn dinner from now on."
16. lack of self awareness, or self reflection... she always sees issues with people as their problem... this has created a huge rift between her and her son, she has stated that she wouldn't mind just sending him away because he doesn't make any sense to her and just pisses her off (on purpose), he has stated that he hates her and wouldn't mind if she went away.
17. Uncoordinated
18. Says inappropriate things in public. On more than one occasion she has said private comments that I made to her to a friend or relative right in front of everyone...

My son, while difficult, is generally happy-go-lucky... he whines a lot, has a lot of bad habits and behavior, is very defiant at times, but generally is a good kid... I would say he is an order of magnitude easier than my wife.

Look, I realize there is a "spectrum" of disorders out there... I personally think my wife is on the Aspie side... do you agree? Funny that I have brought this up to several counselors with their fancy community college degrees (sarcasm), and they are very dismissive, like "I am the professional, there is no way you could make that diagnosis on your own, you should focus on yourself." Pisses me off... one reason I avoid talking to "professionals." Anyone else have that experience?

Wondering if there is anyone else out there in a similar situation as mine. I have nearly walked out my wife several times... mainly for the well-being of my son... but I do love my wife and feel almost like she would be hopeless without me. I have suffered mentally and physically from the stress of my household... it is tough keeping it together some days, it is quite literally like we live the same stressful day over and over again, same arguments, same discussions, same issues.

The commenter brings up a couple of facets of Aspergers which I've noticed but haven't mentioned here before.

Ironically, Aspies are often the last people who'd even consider the possibility that they have Aspergers Syndrome. They never admit they're wrong about anything, and can't take blame, and if they're undiagnosed, may scoff at the possibility that they have it, simply because to do so would be, in their minds, to somehow admit fault.

They do seem to like pets. Dogs and cats never make fun of them, or point out their inconsistencies. Aspies need the uncritical love more than most. (Uncritical affection is why most people like pets, but it's even more motivation for Aspies, who not only often find other human beings critical, but who have a hard time taking criticism.)

I've noticed they lack common sense with money, too. If they something, they buy it.

The commenter's experience with "professionals" in the field rings true as well: they are quite territorial, and set great store by credentialism. They seem to think that opinions derived from classroom study are superior to long term, firsthand experience. (Who had a better feel for chimps, your average graduate student in primatology who'd taken a few trips to the zoo, or Jane Goodall?)

This commenter's real world experience gives him far more insight than anyone who just read about Aspergers Syndrome in a book.

Best women's collegiate team ever

There's never been another women's college swim team as good, and there's probably never been another collegiate team in any sport with the same star power as the current Stanford women's swim team.

Two nights ago Ally Howe, a junior, set the American and US Open records in the 100 yard backstroke with a 49.69, breaking Natalie Coughlin's record of 49.97 from 2002.

Ella Eastin, a sophomore, is the American and US Open record holder in the 200 yard individual medley with a 1:51.65.

Simone Manuel, a sophomore, holds the American and US Open record in the 100 yard freestyle with a 46.08. She is also the Olympic champion from Rio in the 100 meter freestyle.

Even if you're not a fan, you've probably heard of Katie Ledecky, now a freshman. She holds the American records in the 500, 1000, and 1650 yard freestyles, and two nights ago broke the American record in the 400 yard individual medley, a new event for her. She also won the 800 meter freestyle as a 15-year-old at the London Olympics, and won three individual golds in Rio.

The only other collegiate team I know of which had four separate national record holders was the Indiana men's swimming team of the early 1970's, with Mark Spitz, Gary Hall, John Kinsella, and Mike Stamm.

There have been plenty of powerhouse teams in lots of sports, and many dynasties that have lasted over a decade. But to have four individual US record holders on one team like that would be like having a college track team with the American record holders in the 100 meter dash, the mile, the 400 hurdles, and the shot put. Not just the NCAA record holders, but the American and US Open record holders. With two of them being individual Olympic champions.

In addition to the girls mentioned, Stanford has senior Lia Neal (a two time Olympian and a bronze and silver medalist) and junior Janet Hu (who ranks among the top 6 of all time in three separate individual events). Plus they have others like Allie Szekely and Katie Drabot with the potential to make A finals at NCAAs this year.

I was a little disgusted with the people who raved over the US Olympic basketball "Dream Team" of 1992. So they assembled an all-star NBA squad to thrash the semi-amateur teams of other, smaller countries -- so what?

I suppose my marveling over this Stanford team is not all that different in spirit. But it's sort of cool to see that sort of collection of talent when it's a group of amateurs going to a selective college and not just a bunch of jaded pros who are basically slumming by competing in the Olympics.

"The 'Permanent State' Has a Press Office"

An article explaining what really happened to Michael Flynn.

Warren Buffett votes with his wallet

Warren Buffett endorsed Hillary Clinton for President back in December of 2015, and this past summer, in the words of the New York Times, "excoriated" Donald Trump:

The investor and philanthropist Warren Buffett unleashed a withering attack on Donald J. Trump on Monday for refusing to release his tax returns, asserting he had something to hide, and for misleading voters about his success as a businessman and ability to improve the American economy...

The attack from perhaps the nation’s most revered investor undercut a core argument of Mr. Trump’s presidential candidacy: that his success as a businessman qualified him to run the country despite his lack of political experience.

But an article this afternoon on Yahoo Finance told a different story: 

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has been on a stock buying spree since the election.

Buffett told Charlie Rose in a recent interview that he loaded up on $12 billion worth of stock since the election through the end of January. He didn’t specify the securities he purchased at the time.

(It turns out he's bought Monsanto, Sirius XM, various airlines, and a lot more Apple.) 

If Buffett felt that Trump misled voters about his ability to improve the American economy, why did he load up on stocks as soon as Trump was elected? Shouldn't he have been lightening up instead? 

How would he have reacted to Hillary victory?

It's always more informative to see how people act than to just listen to what they say. And the way Buffett voted with his wallet was a lot more convincing than what he said last summer.

That's why they call them limousine liberals.

They preach to you about the value of diversity, but live in communities which are almost entirely white.

They say wealthy people should be taxed more, then use every trick in the book to avoid paying taxes themselves.

They lecture us about how we have to conserve energy, then take private jets themselves.

All in all, they're not very persuasive.

Joy Villa, marketing genius

You've probably seen that picture of singer Joy Villa showing up to the Grammys in a "Make America Great Again" dress --

It must have taken some courage -- or, at least, nerve -- to appear that way at a show business event where anti-Trump sentiment would be near unanimous. Turns out, it was the smartest thing Villa could have done.

In an article this afternoon, the NY Post reported:

A hitherto little-known singer who donned a dress lauding President Trump at the Grammys saw a spike in the online sales of her record. Joy Villa’s “I Make the Static” soared to No. 1 on Amazon and No. 11 on the iTunes album chart as of 12:30 p.m. Monday.

Villa, a 25-year-old Scientologist who performs as Princess Joy Villa, sported a red, white and blue gown emblazoned with the president’s “Make America Great Again” motto as well as the name “TRUMP” in even larger letters.

You can come to your own conclusions about Villa's singing ability, demonstrated here, on Youtube. And you probably already have an opinion about her religion of choice, Scientology. 

But you can't fault Villa's marketing sense. 

When Fox News first appeared on the scene and then quickly vaulted to the number one spot among news channels, it wasn't because either Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity were so incisive or charismatic. It was because Fox was the only conservative news network available. So while all the other left of center channels had to fight for that half of the TV audience, Fox got the entire conservative audience all to itself.

Likewise, when Madonna publicly expresses her antipathy for Trump, nobody decides to buy more of her music for that reason. Why would they? She's just one of many reciting the company line. 

But Villa must be the only young pop singer out there who has dared to publicly express admiration for Trump. So, a lot of Trump supporters decided to vote with their wallets, and give her a chance. 

Villa doesn't seem an extraordinarily bashful girl --

But then again, you can't be inhibited and be a performing artist. 

The general rule among female singers is, the more flash and exhibitionism, the less singing talent. From what I've seen and heard, Villa doesn't violate that rule. But she's now a household name. And in show biz, sometimes that's all you really need. 

Sinking the knife in

Someone just posed an interesting question via email: do sociopaths need the visceral thrill of lying to people in person, or does doing it via television, or online, et cetera, produce the same satisfaction?

I'm not sure sociopaths need the thrill of fooling people, though they certainly enjoy it. I suppose they also enjoy doing it via social media, though that way they wouldn't get the "hands on" thrill of firsthand observation of a real live person who's been made a fool of.

It's a little like the difference between a serial killer shooting people from long range (which very few of them do) vs. sinking a knife into their victims so they can savor their victims' pain and terror while slowly killing them.

Somewhat coincidentally, the subject of Psycho also came up in the same email. It's a dumb movie: its very title illustrates how little understanding of actual serial killers it has. It conflates "psychotic" and "psychopathic," and tries to make the Norman Bates character both, which almost never happens in real life.

(The movie's only excuse was that it was made in 1960, long before the nature of serial killing was understood.)

The only reason it was a hit was because it was a Hitchcock, and because that famous shower scene with Janet Leigh getting stabbed was "sexy."

"I'm a gay New Yorker -- and I'm coming out as a conservative"

The NY Post just ran an article by Chadwick Moore, a 33-year-old gay journalist who'd been a lifelong liberal until recently. The relevant excerpts:

When Out magazine assigned me an interview with the Breitbart.com rabble-rouser Milo Yiannopoulos, I knew it would be controversial. In the gay and liberal communities in particular, he is a provocative and loathed figure, and I knew featuring him in such a liberal publication would get negative attention. He has been repeatedly kicked off Twitter for, among other things, reportedly inciting racist, sexist bullying of “Ghostbusters” actress Leslie Jones. Before interviewing Yiannopoulos, I thought he was a nasty attention-whore, but I wanted to do a neutral piece on him that simply put the facts out there.

After the story posted online in the early hours of October 21, I woke up to more than 100 Twitter notifications on my iPhone. Trolls were calling me a Nazi, death threats rolled in and a joke photo that I posed for in a burka served as “proof” that I am an Islamophobe.

I’m not.

Most disconcertingly, it wasn’t just strangers voicing radical discontent. Personal friends of mine — men in their 60s who had been my longtime mentors — were coming at me. They wrote on Facebook that the story was “irresponsible” and “dangerous.” A dozen or so people unfriended me. A petition was circulated online, condemning the magazine and my article. All I had done was write a balanced story on an outspoken Trump supporter for a liberal, gay magazine, and now I was being attacked. I felt alienated and frightened.

I lay low for a week or so. Finally, I decided to go out to my local gay bar in Williamsburg, where I’ve been a regular for 11 years. I ordered a drink but nothing felt the same; half the place — people with whom I’d shared many laughs — seemed to be giving me the cold shoulder. Upon seeing me, a friend who normally greets me with a hug and kiss pivoted and turned away.

Frostiness spread far beyond the bar, too. My best friend, with whom I typically hung out multiple times per week, was suddenly perpetually unavailable. Finally, on Christmas Eve, he sent me a long text, calling me a monster, asking where my heart and soul went, and saying that all our other friends are laughing at me.

Moore goes on to describe how it was this rejection from his former friends, as much as anything else, that opened his mind, and made him see how "ugly, lock step, incurious, and mean-spirited" they were. 

The article illustrates several things quite well. Liberals, although they pride themselves on being "open-minded," are just the opposite. They simply want to squelch all dissenting voices, whether by freezing them out, as Moore's friends, did, or by rioting, as the Berkeley AntiFa crowd did. 

Moore's former friends also used typically liberal forms of "argument," which consisted calling him names like "Nazi" and "Islamophobe" and "monster" and asking him where his "heart and soul" went.  They had no compelling logical arguments, and no facts; just insults. 

While the Left condemns "fat-shaming" and "slut-shaming," they themselves seem to indulge in an awful lot in "fact-shaming" and "open-mindedness-shaming."  

Moore's former mentors described his article as "dangerous." Isn't that characterization tacit acknowledgement that Yiannopoulos is telling truths the Left doesn't want people to hear?

As long as the Left continues to carry on as it does, we're going to be seeing a lot more Chadwick Moores. There will probably be some gays who see the Post article and are swayed by that. 

And as we all know, gays are at the cutting edge of every fashion trend. 

Those pesky commenters

Yahoo, like its brethren in the media, always has a predictably liberal slant. So it was not surprising to see the following headline this morning:

Protests Erupt in Los Angeles Following Reports of Immigration Raids

There was an embedded video, then the entire article consisted of the following paragraph:

While immigration advocates say more than 100 people were detained Thursday as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials conducted home raids across three Southern California counties, the federal agency insists its operations were "routine" and not part of President Donald Trump`s unprecedented immigration crackdown.

Note the way they quote immigration advocates, and put the word "routine" in quotation marks, as if it's not believable. Note that the word "illegal" is never used, and that it's left unmentioned that ICE was targeting felons. 

Surprisingly, Yahoo, unlike a lot of news organizations, still allows comments after its articles. Most of the media have long since gotten rid of their comment sections, after they discovered that what emanated from them were sentiments directly opposed to their own viewpoints. 

Anyway, take a look at the article, and then click on "Comments" (there are over 2000). Virtually every commenter was strongly in favor of the roundup, and many expressed their views in scathing terms.

(On the internet, they're the not-so-silent majority.)

It's actually sort of reassuring. Despite the constant stream of leftist propaganda emanating from the MSM, most people are far more commonsensical.

Most commenters used only first names, sometimes with an initial attached, or a nickname. You have to wonder whether they would have felt free to express their opinions honestly, had they been forced to use their real first and last names. 

In anonymia veritas.

(I know, I shouldn't mock colleges for using Latin, then do the same myself.)

Update, an hour later: turns out AOL allows commenters, too, and the comments they got after an article about this recent roundup followed a similar pattern. 

Rebels without a future

There's something magnificent -- at least in his own mind -- about a young guy who doesn't bow to authority, who doesn't obey the rules, and who's a rebel. They can sometimes be charismatic guys who attract women, at least when young. Or they can be the AntiFa types, who don't. (Either way, there's often a strong element of narcissism in their personalities.)

But when you see these guys when they're old, there's usually something a little pathetic about them. Unless they're extraordinarily entrepreneurial, their basic attitude of not wanting to be a grind and hit the books, or knuckle under, or kiss ass, or work in a cubicle, or work for the Man, often leaves them stranded.

If you're Bill Gates, you can drop out of Harvard and thrive. And if you're Mick Jagger, you can drop out of the London School of Economics and still make a lot of money. But stories like theirs are rare.

In most cases, being too cool for school -- or a regular job -- doesn't pay off.

And the rebels usually end up knuckling under anyway, at a lousier job, for an even dumber boss.

And as the testosterone gradually ebbs, so does the exuberance. And once their physicality is gone, they end up poor and bitter.

The cliche here is the high school quarterback, who never quite experienced anything quite so glorious again. But it's not just him; it's all the guys whose youthful self-image wouldn't allow for more pedestrian, practical pursuits.

The kind of pursuits which lead to stability later on.

There's often some substance abuse in the mix. Young guys who like get gloriously drunk, and who are gloriously daring with illicit drugs often let themselves become addicted. Then, eventually, if they manage to survive and get sober, they end up working as drug counselors or the like. Or they just hang on, doing..... something.

I once mentioned how a Schadenfreude Magazine would do well; to date no one has started one. But there are a plethora of cautionary tales about athletes and others who peaked early.

Nerds don't always end up on top. But too cool young guys almost never do.

The silent majority

There've been a couple of headlines recently about how a new poll on Trump's immigration ban on those seven countries has "surprising" results. Evidently 55% of respondents favor the ban, while 33% disapprove. Trump's executive order to revoke federal funding for sanctuary cities is approved by the same margin, 55% to 33%.

According to Business Insider, Trump's order to approve immediate construction of a wall along the border with Mexico is met with 48% approval against 42% disapproval. And his order to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership has 47% approval vs. 33% disapproval.

The only reason any of these results would be "surprising" is because all of the noise has been made by opponents of Trump. they are the ones marching in the streets, protesting, and in some cases rioting. They seems to think that if they show up to these events in large enough numbers, they will give the impression that "the people" are rising up against the horrible dictator in the White House.

"The people," and their allies in the MSM. they certainly seem to have convinced themselves.

But, all the tumult and uproar that these groups generate is misleading. Because the majority of people realize that Trump is making commonsensical moves to protect Americans.

Richard Nixon used to refer to this group as the "silent majority." He was right, too, because he was elected twice. Behavior patterns don't change: the Left made all the noise back then, too.

"The coming clash with Iran"

A friend sent this Pat Buchanan article yesterday. Buchanan, peacenik, is not the way he's generally perceived, but in the past couple decades he has in fact become one of the leading voices for America's withdrawal from the never-ending Middle East conflict.

In the article he outlines perfectly why a war with Iran would be unjustified, and gain us nothing but more enmity in the Muslim world. 

And, as Buchanan points out, one of the best things about Trump was that he didn't feel obliged to kowtow to Republican orthodoxy. And one of the most appealing ways he differed was to acknowledge that the Iraq War was a mistake from the start.

In fact, just a few days ago he said he wished Senators McCain and Graham would stop constantly trying to drag us into World War Three.

(It's a lot easier to tolerate a man of ego if he's also a man of peace.)

So why the recent saber rattling against Iran?

Is some of this tough talk an outgrowth of Trump's annoyance at the nuclear deal with Iran, where Obama and Kerry basically gave away everything in return for pretty much nothing? That "deal," and the subsequent $400 million ransom paid for those four Americans last August, obviously offended the businessman in Trump.

Is Trump somehow being unduly swayed by Israel? It's no secret they consider Iran their biggest threat.

And how much of this might be a matter of the generals on Trump's staff spoiling for hostilities simply because they are more militarily inclined?

In fairness to Trump, he did criticize the recent deal with Iran on several occasions during his campaign. So it's not as if he's completely changing his stance here. But the only outright military action he advocated had to do with ISIS.

Trump may succeed in protecting our borders, in bringing the crime rate down, and in helping the middle class. But if he gets us into an extended war with Iran, that will be his legacy. And it won't be a good one.

The underlying conceit....

...of all these protests about Trump's three month moratorium on immigration from seven Muslim countries is that United States citizenship should be an automatic right for anyone in the world who wants it.

There is no other country in the world -- outside western Europe -- which has an immigration policy designed to benefit foreigners at its own expense.

I can't prance into South Korea and demand citizenship. I can't fly to Russia and announce, guess what, I'm your countryman. I can't climb the fence into Israel and say, hey, I'm an Israeli now.

Mexico, which constantly lectures us about how we should loosen our border controls, has more stringent requirements for citizenship than we do. You must have five years of legal residence there before you can even apply for citizenship. You can only get away with two years legal residence if, according to Wikipedia:

to the judgment of the Secretariat [of Foreign Affairs], she or he has performed or created outstanding works in a cultural, social, scientific, technical, artistic, sports or business area that benefit the nation.

If you do become naturalized Mexican citizen, you are not allowed to become a member of the Mexican military during peacetime, a policeman, or a captain or pilot on any Mexican-flagged vessel or aircraft. Nor are you allowed to become President of Mexico, a member of the Congress of Mexico, a member of the Supreme Court of Mexico, a Governor of a Mexican state, or the Mayor or member of the legislature of Mexico City. 

In the US, the only office naturalized citizens are prevented from holding is President. If Trump tried to institute the types of restrictions Mexico does, the chorus of outraged howls comparing him to Hitler would be deafening.

And imagine going to Mexico and demanding free hospital care in their emergency wards, free schooling for your kids, and the right to bring as many relatives as you want from the US. All paid for by Mexican taxpayers. 

You'd be laughed out of the country. Or, more likely, put in a Mexican jail. 

Perhaps we should march into Saudi Arabia and insist we be allowed to build Presbyterian churches in Mecca. (The same way Muslims can build mosques wherever they like in the US.)

Perhaps we should go to Iran and insist that women be allowed to sunbathe topless on beaches of the Arabian Sea. (The same way Muslim women wear hijabs in the West.)

Perhaps we should go to Pakistan and inform the local residents that unless they institute equal rights for women, they are a backward, savage people. (The same way some Muslims here say they eventually want sharia law in the US.)

And what if we did so while making it clear that we hate everything these countries stand for, and that we do not necessarily disapprove of our fellow immigrants who want to set off bombs in crowded places in these countries.

It would be enlightening to see what sorts of reactions we'd get.

It seems doubtful that each of these countries has a sizable portion of their population which will hold demonstrations insisting on our freedom to do these things.

In those countries, people prefer to commit suicide at others' expense, not just their own.