An evening in the emergency ward

Yesterday afternoon, right after lunch, I asked my daughter to step on my back (I enjoy having my spine cracked). My mistake was to ask her to do that when I had a full stomach. Right afterwards, I felt a severe pain in my left chest. Suspecting the worst, I put my hand to my throat to measure my pulse; it was beating strong and steady. But every time I tried to breathe deeply, it hurt my left lung. Then, when I tried to lay down, I found that resulted in intense pain. My family urged me to call the doctor. After a few hours, I did. Partly because I'm 60, but mostly because a doctor's job is to err on the side of caution (and avoid malpractice suits), I was told to go to the emergency ward at the local hospital.

I had the full battery of tests, and they found nothing wrong. Eventually they gave me some muscle relaxants, I went home, and slept soundly. I still can't breathe deeply, but seem to be on the mend.

There are various situations in which I would find it utterly impossible to get a hard on. One is while exercising hard. Another would be while giving a public speech. A third is being in an airplane during turbulence. I would rank last night's situation ahead of all of them.

There's nothing quite like sitting in a backless hospital gown with an IV coming out of your arm, an oxygen monitor on your right index finger, and a bunch of EKG wires hanging off you to make you feel emasculated.

Plus, when everybody is treating you like an old man who's about to keel over, you can't help but feel like one.

Thank goodness my son came with me to insult me and make me feel normal. He took a picture of me in my gown, and mused about how he could turn this situation into a good story to tell girls.

We also talked about how hospitals themselves can make you feel sick.

It is true. I felt fine when I got there, and when they first took my blood pressure in the "triage" area, it measured 113/77, about normal. However, by the time they took it again when I was covered in those sticky EKG thingies and having a needle jabbed into me for blood extraction, it measured 140/98.

The nurse took four vials of blood from me for various tests. (Good bye to that world record attempt I had been planning for next month; reverse blood doping has never been known to work). I asked her if I could have the blood back when they were through testing it, but she didn't seem to think that was a good idea.

While we were waiting for the results, my son told me about a recent Medal of Honor winner who'd been shot in both legs, then got one of his arms blown off by an enemy hand grenade. He'd had to tie the tourniquet himself around his own stump.

Then he kept fighting.

I couldn't help but feel my son told me that story to provide a contrast to my own behavior.

The story was certainly inspirational though. It bolstered my courage to the point that when the nurse stuck the needle in, I didn't even cry.

I'm dreading the bill. The doctor said she consulted with a radiologist to get a second opinion on my chest x-ray, and started to tell me about what they'd found, but after that all I could hear was "fee splitting."

Next time I'm not going in unless I'm positive I'll die otherwise.

And even then, I'll think twice.

Aspergerian conversational patterns

I've known two women with Aspergers who would say something, then later deny having said it. Whenever I've pointed out that what they're saying contradicts they've said before, they'll simply say, "I never said that," with an air of finality.

I'm not sure exactly what their thought process is when they do this. Are they thinking they're pulling the wool over my eyes? Have they somehow actually convinced themselves that they never said it? Or are they somehow thinking that by being so definitive in their denials they are somehow "retracting" their previous statement? The first explanation implies dishonesty, the latter two insanity. Aspies are generally not dishonest, and are usually not quite certifiable; but I can think of no other explanations.

At the same time, Aspies will often tell me I've said things that I know I haven't said. Or they'll so completely misinterpret my words that my meaning will become unrecognizable.

We are all guilty, to a certain extent, of merely waiting impatiently for our turn to talk without completely processing what the other person is saying. But Aspies really do it, even when they're ostensibly asking you a question.

I've had one Aspie ask me what the weather forecast is for that day, and when I said I didn't know, she would immediately shoot back, "Oh, so it's going to be in the 60's?" (This happened on multiple occasions.)

Another pattern: the lamer the excuse, the more Aspergerian the personality.

Back in June, during the publicity surrounding the 70th anniversary of D-Day, I overheard a conversation between a man and a woman whom I happen to know has Aspergers. The man said disgustedly that several recent headlines had proclaimed that "350,000 American military personnel" had been killed during WWII. He then asked, why couldn't they just say "350,000 men," since that's who died.

The Aspie, a doctrinaire feminist, replied, "Oh, well you know, a lot of women died too." She had no clue how many had actually died, she just said that because she wanted women to receive equal credit for sacrifice. The man replied, "Right, sixteen." (I looked it up later; that number is accurate.)

The Aspie hemmed and hawed, then replied, "Oh, well, you know, once you add in the women who died in the factories back home, it was a lot more." She had no clue about this, either, but seemed to feel that this was a face-saving rejoinder.

Let's think about that statement. How many women would have died in factories during those four years? Twenty? Fifty? Two hundred? And how many of those deaths would have been essentially from natural causes, like heart attacks that probably would have happened anyway? A few factory deaths certain doesn't alter the balance of deaths by gender; but the Aspie couldn't admit to being wrong, so she came up with that incredibly lame retort.

A normal person would have replied, "Oh, I hadn't realized the disparity was that great," or something to that effect, and let it go. But the Aspie had to scramble for something, anything, to keep from admitting she was wrong, no matter how lame.

Whenever I've tried to have conversations with Aspies, the feeling I've always been left with is that I've been talked at rather than with. I've had to struggle to get a word in edgewise. And whatever I've said has ended up either misinterpreted or ignored.

In the end, it's an experience best avoided.

The iPhone6 is available!

A friend just commented on how silly it is for all these people to line up outside the Apple stores today to buy the iPhone6. Can they not make calls on their current phone?

I couldn't agree more.

They seem to be a slightly more moneyed version of the people who used to camp out outside the movie theaters so they could be the first to see the latest installment of the Star Wars saga.

Was there really that much of a difference between seeing the movie at that special midnight showing on Friday morning and seeing a matinee later on in the weekend? Was the outcome going to be any different? Could they really not wait to find out what happened next to Luke Skywalker?

The only explanation for that phenomenon was that they actually enjoyed the camping out.

When else could they enjoy that delicious sense of keen anticipation? Where else could they actually dress up in Star Wars costumes and not be ostracized for it? Where else could they get the sense that they were really happening people? Who else but their fellow enthusiasts could give them the sense of actually belonging?

The movie, when they finally saw it, was quite likely anticlimactic for them. (I've never been able to watch more than five minutes of any of the sequels on TV.) But that was okay, because the pre-movie party -- their version of the red carpet -- was so much fun.

At least the iPhone6 enthusiasts waiting in line all over the globe this morning aren't dressed up in costume. But it's hard to believe that any significant percentage of them have exhausted the available apps on the iPhones 4 or 5.

Once again, it seems to be the anticipation itself that's the draw. That, and the opportunity to commune with all their fellow aficionados.

Ownership

A friend told me today that he and his girlfriend had just competed in a 10 kilometer river swimming race. He said his girlfriend --

"had come out of the water shivering and wobbly, and was coughing. Her kayaker said she'd started coughing later in the race. At this point I had no worry -- she has had hypothermia in previous races. She sat down for a while and was shivering uncontrollably, so we moved her to the sun. She complained of not feeling well, didn’t look good, and was semi-responsive to people’s questions. I suggested calling 911. It was a weird situation because though she didn’t seem to be doing well, she also didn’t seem to be about to pass out or anything like that. The ambulance came, and took her to hospital. It turned out she had pulmonary edema – her lungs filled up with water (from her body). I don’t know what her oxygen level was upon arrival but it was so low they were ready to intubate her."

I asked my friend what would have happened if she hadn't gotten to the hospital as soon as she had, and he said it wasn't clear. 

I then suggested that given the danger she was in, he had probably saved her life by requesting the ambulance when he had. He demurred, and said that if he hadn't done so, someone else undoubtedly would have. 

I told him I thought he very well could have saved her life, or at least saved her from brain damage or some other permanent injury, and that he should file that away for their next argument. 

Again, he demurred and said he was just happy she was okay. 

I know that if I were in his situation I'd use it to my advantage. (Have you ever seen a movie where the hero saves the girl's life and then doesn't get her?)

Granted, this woman is already his girlfriend. But saving her life has got to be good for some kind of leverage. 

Were I in my friend's position, I don't think I'd even be subtle about it: "Hey, I just saved your life. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, I basically own you."

How sociopaths are dumb

Sociopaths, like the rest of us, come in a full range of IQ's. The dumber ones tend to engage in carjackings and bank robberies. The smarter ones gravitate more towards Wall Street and politics, and some do quite well for themselves.

But no matter how smart a sociopath is, he will inevitably have certain intellectual weaknesses that stem primarily from his narcissism. Sociopaths inevitably think themselves better at everything than they are, and this is often their downfall.

Sociopaths often think they're fooling people when they're not. When a normal person is onto a sociopath, and realizes he's being lied to, he may just be too polite to say so, at least at first. The sociopath will take this as proof he's getting away with whatever lie he's promoting at the moment. Or, because he's successfully fooled people in the past, he thinks he will continue to get away with it in the future -- since, after all, he's so much smarter than everyone else.

Sometimes the lie is harmless, like insisting he hasn't had any plastic surgery when he obviously has. Other times, it's more sinister.

Similarly, sociopaths expect people to believe them when they claim to be turning over a new leaf, no matter how many times they've made similarly false statements in the past. And sociopaths always seem to think that they're fooling others with their displays of false emotionality. A sociopath always thinks he is disproving Abraham Lincoln's dictum.

Sociopaths, despite being masters of manipulation, are, ironically, quite easy to manipulate themselves. Because their egos are so out of control, they tend to believe whatever compliments they get. This makes them extremely susceptible to flattery. All you need to do is couch your request in a compliment ("You're far too smart to be doing that").

A sociopath is far more likely to surrender to his impulses, and compromise his future as a result. The seven deadly sins are in fact far more deadly when it comes to a sociopath. He'll let wrath get the better of him, and pull that trigger, or set that house on fire. He'll let lust get the better of him, and rape that girl. He'll let greed overcome him, and embezzle those funds. He'll even let curiosity get the better of him, and see how fast that car will go. And he's far more likely to indulge in drugs and drink, whatever the long term consequences.

He may regret all these things later, but it matters not at the moment, because "live for today" is the sociopath's motto.

Because a sociopath thinks little of the future, he is fearless when he should be fearful. ("I'm way smarter than those dumbass detectives, they'll never catch me."/"I know how to handle heroin, I'm not going to get addicted like those other idiots."/"I'm a great driver, I won't get in an accident.")

An alternative sociopathic motto might be, "Live fast, die young, and leave a surgically enhanced corpse."

Sociopaths tend to see themselves as victims, even when they are victimizers. So they never have a clear view of any complicated situation in which they have a vested interest. In their minds, everything that goes wrong is always someone else's fault. Since wisdom can only be gained by learning from one's mistakes, if you can never admit you're wrong, you can't learn.

So, sociopaths never develop good senses of judgment.

Sociopaths don't have the kind of patience it takes to calmly mull things over, so never really figure things out on their own and make great intuitive leaps -- the essence of true creativity. This, of course, does not stop them from taking credit for others' ideas, as Steve Jobs did.

(They are good at spur of the moment improvising, coming up with glib lies, and delivering them in a way so as to seem credible; but that is a different matter.)

In any case, all these egotistical quirks effectively render every sociopath stupid, no matter his IQ.

If you're aware of this, it will help you to deal with them more effectively. It should also help you avoid being sucked into a sociopath's self-destructive vortex.

Bruce Levenson latest member of KKK

In case you haven't heard, Bruce Levenson, partial owner of the Atlanta Hawks, has outed himself as a "racist" and has volunteered to sell his stake in the NBA franchise for having sent an email in which he said the following:

Regarding game ops, I need to start with some background. for the first couple of years we owned the team, I didn't much focus on game ops. then one day a light bulb went off. When digging into why our season ticket base is so small, I was told it is because we can't get 35-55 [-year-old] white males and corporations to buy season tixs and they are the primary demo[graphic] for season tickets around the league. When I pushed further, folks generally shrugged their shoulders. then I start looking around our arena during games and notice the following:

-- it's 70 pct black
-- the cheerleaders are black
-- the music is hip hop
-- at the bars it's 90 pct black
-- there are few fathers and sons at the games
-- we are doing after game concerts to attract more fans and the concerts are either hip hop or gospel.

Then I start looking around at other arenas. It is completely different. Even DC with its affluent black community never has more than 15 pct black audience.

Before we bought the Hawks and for those couple years immediately after in an effort to make the arena look full (at the NBA's urging) thousands and thousands of tickets were being giving away, predominantly in the black community, adding to the overwhelming black audience.

My theory is that the black crowd scared away the whites and there are simply not enough affluent black fans to build a significant season ticket base. Please dont get me wrong. There was nothing threatening going on in the arena back then. I never felt uncomfortable, but I think southern whites simply were not comfortable being in an arena or at a bar where they were in the minority. On fan sites I would read comments about how dangerous it is around Philips yet in our 9 years, I don't know of a mugging or even a pick pocket incident. This was just racist garbage. When I hear some people saying the arena is in the wrong place I think it is code for there are too many blacks at the games.

I have been open with our executive team about these concerns. I have told them I want some white cheerleaders and while i don't care what the color of the artist is, I want the music to be music familiar to a 40 year old white guy if that's our season tixs demo. I have also balked when every fan picked out of crowd to shoot shots in some time out contest is black. I have even bitched that the kiss cam is too black.

Gradually things have changed. My unscientific guess is that our crowd is 40 pct black now, still four to five times all other teams. And my further guess is that 40 pct still feels like 70 pet to some whites at our games. Our bars are still overwhelmingly black.

This is obviously a sensitive topic, but sadly I think it is far and way the number one reason our season ticket base is so low.

And many of our black fans don't have the spendable income which explains why our f&b and merchandise sales are so low. At all white Thrasher games sales were nearly triple what they are at hawks games (the extra intermission explains some of that but not all).

This strikes me as an exceedingly innocuous email. All of this is just stuff that takes place in every marketing department of every large corporation across the country. Advertisers have always targeted specific demographics, including every ethnic group and every age bracket. 

Nowhere in this email did Levenson express any personal antipathy to blacks, or use any ethnic slurs, or even mention verifiable-but-still-controversial facts like IQ differences or crime rates. It was all just Marketing 101. 

Levenson mentions the ticket giveaway in the black community, and even dismisses any talk of the area surrounding the arena being dangerous as "racist garbage."

This, of course, hasn't stopped outlets like the New York Times from writing hand-wringing editorials about Levenson being an example of "racism" in the NBA. 

Here's the real question: why would a hard-edged businessman like Levenson choose to "out" himself two years after sending this email? 

There's been some talk about how he may have been blackmailed, or he might have realized the email was about to be exposed anyway because of the private detectives Donald Sterling had hired to root out other examples of "racism" among NBA owners. 

That's certainly possible. But it seems far more likely that Levenson simply wanted, for business reasons, to sell his interest in the Hawks and used this as a convenient excuse. My guess, he's hoping some mogul like Steve Ballmer is willing to give him more than the franchise is currently valued at. 

Judging women

In a post on August 16th, I quoted a feminist who had commented on this blog that "men aren't judged primarily on their appearance, as women are."

This is something that a lot of feminists seem to believe, and is worth exploring.

What feminists don't understand is that judging a woman as a human being and judging her as a potential sex partner are two completely different things. Some women seem to think they are one and the same. I'm a fairly typical guy in this regard: I judge women the same way I judge men: on their intelligence, toughness, sense of humor, friendliness, honesty, and lack of egocentrism.

Now, judging a woman as a potential sex partner is another matter entirely. A woman's sexual desirability is almost purely a matter of her looks.

But I don't conflate the two.

(Likewise, I'm capable of saying, wow, he's a good-looking guy, and not mistaking that quality for character.)

Do a woman's looks affect her personality? I'd say IQ and sociopathy are distributed more or less randomly. But it's my vague impression that the women with the most pleasing personalities tend to be 6's, 7's, and 8's. (And yes, I'm using the numerical ratings so despised by feminists, but I'm using them for the sake of convenience, not as a measure of anyone's overall worth as a human being.)

Women who are 9's and 10's tend to be spoiled, and to think themselves far more interesting than they are. Most have developed somewhat passive personalities, as so much in life just gets handed to them. I also tend to associate them with a certain type of craziness, as a fair number of the ones I've known have had eating issues.

Women who are 3's, 4's, and 5's tend to be a little boring, as they sometimes lack social confidence. But they also tend to be the most accomplished. (Go to any Ivy League campus and you'll see they predominate.)

Women who are 1's and 2's can end up bitter against men. Sometimes to the point where they become fire-breathing feminists.

Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to all of these tendencies. And I have no scientific basis for any of this, just some vague personal impressions.

But, the main point here is -- and I think I can speak for most guys when I say this -- I never confuse looks with character.

Nor do I confuse gender with personality, as the feminist quoted above seems to do.

Joan Rivers

It looks as if Joan Rivers is about to go, which is unfortunate. She was an utterly fearless comedian. She was sharp, and unafraid to be offensive, and stayed that way right up until the day she went into a coma.

The best tribute I can give her is simply to link some of her standup acts.

This is about nine minutes from a 2010 documentary about her called Piece of Work, which shows how ferocious she was. At about the four minute mark she does a wonderful job of facing down a heckler in Wisconsin, actually working in a little humor while doing so. The clip also shows her offstage, and you get a sense of how tough she is.

Here she is in Live at the Apollo, Part I and Part II. Some of what you'll see here is regular old-timey schtick, but her nerve and timing and humor are faultless.

Rivers was the anti-Robin Williams. She was iconoclastic, disrespectful, profane, scathingly sarcastic, and almost always on target.

The fact is, you can't be funny if you're not those things. (Who was the last politically correct person you met who was truly funny?)

Rivers was -- along with Kathy Griffin -- one of the two best female comedians I've ever seen.

Addendum, next day: Rivers died a few hours after I put up this post. RIP. 

Pamela Anderson, then and now

I realize this is a minority opinion, but I've never found Pamela Anderson attractive. Even in her Baywatch phase, with those puffed up lips and silicone monstrosities on her chest, to me she had all the sexual appeal of a public urinal:

She probably hit her peak when she first started out as an aspiring model, before she became famous. Here she looks like the young Michelle Phillips, of The Mamas and the Papas fame:

Even at that point, she had already had some work done, as this high school yearbook photo of her attests:

As time went on, her post-Baywatch photos showed her looking more and more like a walking mug shot:

So I was shocked to see this makeover yesterday on the cover of NoTofu:

She looks downright elegant. I don't know how much airbrushing was done, but she looks lean, and healthy, and her skin looks good as well. The remains of those puffed up lips are still there, but otherwise, she's beautiful.

Hope she sticks with the look.

While searching for photos to illustrate this post, I stumbled across an article in which Anderson described the sexual abuse she had undergone from an early age. Evidently she was molested by a female babysitter from age 6 to 10, raped at 12 by a 25-year-old man, and gang-raped at 14 by six of her boyfriend's friends.

There seems to be a pattern where young victims of sexual abuse end up presenting themselves as sexual objects for the rest of their lives. That was certainly the case with Anderson. She didn't look like a battered woman early on, if those youthful photos are any indication, though as she got older she seemed to take on that look. But that may also have partly been a function of the normal process of aging.

Perhaps, if that latest photo is any indication, Anderson has finally recovered from that early abuse.

I doubt it, though; it's probably more just a function of some stylist's efforts. No one ever completely gets over their formative experiences.

(That's why they're called "formative.")

Sabotage

Saw Sabotage last night. I'd been expecting just another dumb action movie, mindless entertainment for a Monday night. It wasn't bad. It had a nice, complicated plot with some unexpected twists. The dialogue was occasionally clever. And Arnold Schwarzenegger actually underacted, the first time I can ever recall seeing that.

The movie got mostly lousy reviews. Rottentomatoes.com gave it a 20% positive rating by critics, no surprise. The 37% rating by audiences was a little unexpected though: who goes to a Schwarzenegger flick about a group of rogue DEA agents expecting anything more than a shoot 'em up? (There was enough gore to sate the most bloodthirsty palate.)

But what I was most struck by were the two main female characters. In this strange, wondrous land called Hollywood, white policewomen evidently disparage their black male colleagues' masculinity, and intimidate big steroided up biker types. And female DEA agents evidently empty their machine guns clips into Mexican cartel members and then exult by pumping their fists in the air and bellowing with joy.

I watched the movie with an Afghanistan vet, who seemed to feel that this portrayal of swaggering, gun-toting females was, to paraphrase him, a tad misleading.

Poor guy. He must have just been with the wrong unit.

Verdict: worth watching, just for the insight into the Hollywood mindset.

Mystery of Baer supporter solved

The person who had been commenting on the Prison pen pals VII post about Fredrick Baer sent in another batch of comments on that post again recently.

The case for Baer's sociopathy is open and shut, as I detailed on that post and again here and here. But no matter how clearly I explained this, the commenter, who claimed to be a therapist, kept making ridiculous excuses for him, blaming all of his actions on crystal meth, and saying he was a caring and empathetic individual who was now doing wonderful work for children.

I eventually started to wonder about the commenter, so I asked what kind of therapist he or she was, and whether the commenter was male or female. (I had gradually gotten the sense that the commenter was female.)

The commenter wouldn't answer my questions, but instead lashed out at me. She called me a destructive sociopath, said I must have come from a bad family background, and even suggested I might be a murderer myself.

Right after this, another commenter wrote in, asking the first commenter if she were Baer's German girlfriend/pen pal. (Up until then, I hadn't heard about her.)

At that point, the scales finally fell from my eyes. That must be who this commenter is, and she obviously suffers from hybristophilia. (Think in terms of those unbalanced women who have been drawn to killers like Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez, and who flocked to their trials and essentially become their "groupies.")

All this time, I was using facts and logic to convince this commenter that Baer was a sociopath, but I was basically talking to a crazy person. Which sorta makes me crazy as well, for thinking I could talk sense to her.

My other mistake was in assuming that when she said she was a "therapist," that she was a psychotherapist of some sort. She could be an aromatherapist, an occupational therapist, a massage therapist, or any number of other things. To call oneself "a therapist" if you're one of the latter, particularly in the context of a discussion of psychology, seems intentionally misleading; but I still shouldn't have made that assumption.

When I told my son that I had finally gotten the sense that the commenter was a woman, he laughed at me. "Of course it's a woman," he scoffed. "No one else could be that mushy-headed. It took you that long to figure it out? You're an idiot."

Guilty as charged.

But, she's not just any woman. She's a very special kind: a hybristophiliac.

What type of women do lesbians prefer?

The feminist mentioned two posts below scolded me about how the average woman is programmed by "a lifetime of insidious brainwashing so subtle she doesn't notice it" by Barbie dolls and the like, and how "men aren't judged primarily on their appearance, as women are." After getting that tongue-lashing, I thought to myself, well, lesbians themselves -- who tend to be the most vocal and militant wing of the feminist movement -- must certainly have better values than men.

I thought, these right-thinking liberal lesbians must not subscribe to the unfair concept of beauty promulgated by the patriarchy. They must be happy to be with another woman who is overweight, with ordinary features, and who looks, in the immortal words of feminists, like a "real woman."

And what better proof of this could there be than rich and famous lesbians, who obviously have their pick of women? I would certainly hope that these successful role models and powerful spokespeople for the movement would lead by example and not subscribe to those male-dominated standards of beauty which feminists so bitterly denounce.

So, I Google-imaged Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen Degeneres, Martina Navratilova, and Melissa Etheridge and their partners, confident that all these rich lesbians must have happily settled for women who looked, well, like them.

Here are some of the results of that search:

Rosie O'Donnell and her first wife Kelli Carpenter:

Rosie O'Donnell and her subsequent girlfriend Tracy Kachtick-Anders:

Rosie O'Donnell and current wife Michelle Rounds:

Ellen DeGeneres and former girlfriend Anne Heche:

Ellen DeGeneres and former partner Alexandra Hedison:

Ellen DeGeneres and wife Portia de Rossi:

Martina Navratilova and (former Miss Texas contestant) Judy Nelson:

Martina Navratilova and more recent girlfriend (and former Miss Universe contestant) Julia Lemigova (on left):

Melissa Etheridge and former partner Tammy Lynn Michaels:

I admit, these pictures were culled for effect. There are prominent lesbians, like Rachel Maddow and Cynthia Nixon, who have partners who look more like stereotypical lesbians. But enough of the rich and powerful ones have paired up with traditionally pretty women (Jodie Foster recently married Alexandra Hedison, who is pictured above with Ellen DeGeneres) that it can't possibly just be coincidence.

Evidently it's not just those piggish men who, when given their druthers, prefer Barbie doll types.

A feminist at her best

Got two comments on Thursday on Finally, a worthwhile protest, the post about the topless FEMEN protester who burned a Barbie doll in effigy in May of last year at the opening of a giant dollhouse in Berlin, Germany.

One comment:

"Which would you be more traumatized by, that scene -- or a doll which does not have precisely correct anatomical proportions?"

Well, gosh, lets see –
one more weird 2-minute incident among the thousands that make up an average childhood, or a lifetime of insidious brainwashing so subtle she doesn’t notice it, that causes the kind of neurotic crazy that men always bitch about?

Gee, that’s a tough call, huh?

This comment is wrong on several different levels. First, the demonstration had to have lasted more than two minutes. Second, it's highly doubtful that an "average" girl witnesses "thousands" of incidents as weird as that. 

Third, the question I posed compared witnessing that scene to owning a Barbie doll. This feminist changed the question into which was more traumatic, witnessing that scene or a lifetime of "insidious brainwashing so subtle she doesn't notice it."

(Why is it that some people can only "win" arguments by putting words into your mouth?)

Fourth, note her use of the word "bitch," a term feminists usually object to on the grounds that it's "gender-loaded."

And fifth, as to that subtle insidious brainwashing, aren't both sexes exposed to idealized stereotypes? You never hear men complain about the "insidious brainwashing" of a lifetime of watching action/adventure movies with impossibly heroic protagonists.

The other comment:

"why do only women protest this sort of thing?"

good question. Maybe because men aren't judged primarily on their appearance, as women are.
Maybe because men just passively accept whatever metric they’re judged by and dive right into the competition, and never question whether it makes any sense at all….

It is true that women are judged more on their looks than men are (she did use the word "primarily" as a qualifier), although men too are judged on their looks. (Women have better values: they often judge men more on earning power than appearance.) 

I'd guess there are as many men as women who question basic values, though that's certainly hard to quantify.

But there's another, more essential difference here. The post was not a condemnation of all women; only of those who would protest a Barbie house. The vast majority of women have far too much common sense to get incensed about Barbie dolls, and realize that -- as I said in the post -- there are far more worthwhile things for women to be concerned about, such as their treatment in Muslim countries.

The feminist, on the other hand,  is happy to condemn all men as a group, saying that they "just passively accept whatever metric they're judged by and dive right into the competition, and never question whether it makes any sense at all…." That is a blanket condemnation of an entire gender, not only for being "passive" but also for not being logical. Isn't that the kind of assumption that feminists are forever castigating men for making? Yet this feminist seems perfectly comfortable doing it herself. 

I like -- or at worst, am indifferent to -- the majority of women. This feminist seems to harbor a deep resentment against all men.

The other thing it's hard not to notice is her bitter sarcasm. By using this semi-hysterical tone -- one you rarely hear from men -- she is demonstrating how feminists are essentially unequal. Mission accomplished.

(I expounded on that inequality theme at more length here.) 

More on Robin Williams

An article in this morning's NY Post titled Williams fell off wagon with drink on TV set outlined the problems the rest of the cast on his recent ill-fated TV series had with him. The relevant excerpts:

While taping “The Crazy Ones,” Williams frequently engaged in his trademark frenetic shtick, veering off script and forcing co-star Sarah Michelle Gellar to improvise her responses, the source said.

His antics infuriated the cast, even though he had been hired to try recreating the madcap spirit of “Mork & Mindy,” on which he often riffed unscripted, the source said.

He also indulged himself by taking his pet pooch, a rescued Pug named Leonard, to work….

Williams….­often complained that he hated the show’s unedited daily rushes.

He also griped that he “had a bad feeling” about the lack of chemistry on set, while the rest of the cast blasted his constant need for attention, the source said.

Ad libbing and forcing other cast members to improvise is pretty selfish behavior. To then turn around and complain about the daily rushes seems hypocritical. And wanting to constantly be the center of attention is really just another form of selfishness.

It's hard to blame the rest of the cast for feeling as they did. 

If someone is beloved by the public but despised by those who know him personally, that's a pretty sharp dichotomy. 

Usually, it's the people who've had personal contact who have the more accurate picture.

Robin Williams

Robin Williams has died, and the fulsome plaudits are flying.

Williams was hardly a brave comedian. I can recall seeing him mock dumb whites, rednecks, inbred Appalachians, and Republicans. I can't recall ever seeing him take on blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, or Asians, or liberals, even individually.

One of his favorite targets was the Nazis, those timely sources of topical humor. He resurrected them on a number of occasions in order to roast them; he must have figured this would please his bosses in Hollywood.

(Is there anything less funny than a political correct comedian who picks only on safe targets?)

On top of that, it turns out he was a well known comedy plagiarist. (If he was such a comic genius, why did he have to steal so much material?)

But even the jokes Williams stole didn't seem all that funny. I saw his standup routine several times, and each time I was left thinking, if you took his words and set them down on paper, nobody would laugh. It always seemed that people laughed was because they thought they were supposed to, because of all his onstage histrionics. It was almost as if Williams acted so frenetic to hide the fact that he had nothing really cutting, or cutting edge, to say.

In his movies, he was far more over-actor than actor. He chewed the scenery ravenously and shamelessly tried to steal every scene he was ever in. All the while looking very pleased with himself.

This treacly scene from Patch Adams is a good example.

Or this "heartwarming" trailer, from Jack.

(I always wondered what would have happened if Williams and Jim Carrey had ever been cast together, as both men desperately needed to be the center of attention.)

Williams had "neglected child" written all over him. To his credit, he admitted as much, according to Wikipedia, saying that his upbringing had "left him with an acute fear of abandonment and a condition he described as 'Love Me Syndrome'."

Williams provided trusts for his three children, also to his credit. But he was evidently having financial difficulties, and in 2013 was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. That may have had something to do with his suicide. That, and the fact that he no longer commanded the same attention he once had.

"Who are you to say….?"

One of the most annoying formulations anybody ever offers in an argument is to imperiously interject, "Who are you to say [such-and-such]?"

There is, of course, no logical rebuttal to such a nonsensical question, which implies that you not worthy of even engaging in a discussion of the matter at hand.

There are, however, several things you can say which point out the absurdity of such a line:

"What would you like me to do, whip out my resume and recite my qualifications before offering an opinion? I could ask the same of you, but don't you think that would be sort of ridiculous?"

Or, "Who am I? I'm someone who's observed [such-and-such] his entire life."

Or, "The subject of discussion isn't me, as much as you'd like to turn this debate into an ad hominem attack. It's [such-and-such]."

Or, you can mock them by thundering back, in even more imperious tones than they used, "Who am I? Who are you to ask such an impertinent question?!"

Of course, people who'd use such a moronic line in the first place probably aren't even smart enough to see they're being made fun of.

Stallone less vain than he appears

There are movie stars who are so vain that they refuse to appear alongside better-looking actors, thinking it will make them look shorter, older, weaker, or uglier by comparison.

It would be an easy assumption that the 5' 7" Sylvester Stallone, he of the 'roided up torso, multiple plastic surgeries, and shaved torso, might be just such an actor.

But he is, in fact, the opposite. He consistently picks the handsomest, toughest-looking actors he can find to star against him.

His latest ventures have been The Expendables series, in which he surrounds himself with every macho, good-looking action hero of the past three decades, including Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, plus heavyweight mixed martial artists Randy Couture and the Nogueira twins. All of these men are taller, more muscular, and more imposing than Stallone. Other cast members include Jason Statham, Mel Gibson and Robert Davi.

Bravo for Stallone that he doesn't mind being surrounded by taller, younger, stronger, more athletic, better-looking men.

Of course, you could say that the entire marketing gimmick of The Expendables was its assemblage of all these older action stars in one movie.

But Stallone has always surrounded himself with bigger, younger, better-looking guys. In Rocky V he hired then unknown Dolph Lundgren to be his opponent. Stallone looked like a homely, misshapen dwarf next to Lundgren, but that didn't seem to bother him:

In the more recent Bullet to the Head, he hired the 6' 5" Jason Momoa, possibly the best-looking guy in movies today, to be his nemesis, and that didn't seem to bother him either. Below, Stallone striking his trademark obligatory pose with Momoa:

Again, bravo for Stallone.

Of course, the other interpretation might be that Stallone actually feels he holds his own looks-wise with these other actors. In which case he is the vainest man who ever lived.

In anger veritas

Whenever people say "That wasn't me, it was the alcohol talking," what they're really saying is, "I would never have blurted out the truth like that if I hadn't become so uninhibited thanks to my drinking."

I suppose this is why people talk about blowing off some steam with a few drinks.

Being angry is like being drunk: it makes you tell the truth. I might as well say, that wasn't me talking, that was just the anger. As a nondrinker, I usually refrain from harsh truths unless I'm angry -- other than on my blog.

Which, in a roundabout way, sorta makes this blog my substitute for drinking.

More on Sheila Jackson Lee

I'm evidently a little late to the party on Representative Jackson Lee. There's an entire meme on the internet devoted to her. A few more tidbits:

From the National Review:

During the 2011 hearings on Islamic terrorism, held by Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.), Jackson Lee railed against them as “an effort to demonize and to castigate a whole broad base of human beings.” She then lamented that the committee was not spending its time on genuine terroristic threats: “the cold cases of the civil-rights movement,” for example. She encouraged the committee to hold hearings to determine “whether Klansmen still roam today and terrorize individuals in parts of this country.”

[Jackson Lee] even complained that devastating natural disasters are used to promote racism, telling the Hill in 2003 that hurricane names are too “lily white” and that “all racial groups should be represented.” She suggested more hurricanes named “Keisha, Jamal, and Deshawn.”

Jackson Lee made her thoughts clear to her onetime Capitol-office executive assistant, Rhiannon Burruss, years ago: “I am a queen, and I demand to be treated like a queen.”

But along with such penetrating insights she would also bring to DHS a reputation as one of the worst bosses on Capitol Hill, according to Jonathan Strong, now a reporter with National Review Online. She is known to throw tantrums, regularly screaming and swearing at her staff. A few years ago she effectively replaced one employee’s name with “you stupid motherf***er.” “It’s like being an Iraq War veteran,” one staffer said.

A few specifics on that subject, from The Daily Caller:

A Jackson Lee aide recounts the time her parents came to Washington to visit: “They were really excited to come to the congressional office. They’re small town people, so for them it was a huge deal. They were actually sitting in the main lobby waiting area….[Jackson Lee] came out screaming at me over a scheduling change. Called me a ‘stupid idiot. Don’t be a moron, you foolish girl’ and actually did this in front of my parents, of all things.”

Yet another staffer remembers requesting a meeting early on in her tenure to ask how best to serve the congresswoman. Jackson Lee’s response: “What? What did you say to me? Who are you, the Congresswoman? You haven’t been elected. You don’t set up meetings with me! I tell you! You know what? You are the most unprofessional person I have ever met in my life.” With that, Jackson Lee hung up the phone.

According to the same staffer, Jackson Lee “would always say, ‘What am I a prostitute? Am I your prostitute? You can’t prostitute me.'"

...Even though she delays others for hours, Jackson Lee won’t wait a second for her demands to be met. “She expected you to run – all the time,” says a former staffer. “There was no walking. Nobody could walk, you always had to run – everywhere. She viewed walking as being lazy, so everyone always had to run.”

Another former aide added that the congresswoman would clock her on how long it took her to run an updated schedule print-out from Jackson Lee’s office in the Rayburn building to the House floor. “She would actually physically time you in terms of from office to getting to the [House] floor and finding her, hunting her down,” the staffer said. Then Jackson Lee would demand, “what took you so long?”

Her former drivers say the congresswoman demanded they run red lights and drive on highway shoulders around traffic. This caused at least one accident.

Somehow, it all fits. The narcissism, sense of entitlement, rudeness, arrogance, promiscuous accusations of racism, and stupidity all just seem to mesh seamlessly.

U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

A few days ago the Washington Times ran an article by Robert Knight, Impeaching the Truth, about Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas. A few excerpts:

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Democrat, impugned the motives of Mr. Boehner for bringing to a floor vote Wednesday a resolution to sue Mr. Obama for usurping powers delegated by the Constitution to Congress. The measure passed on a party-line vote of 225 to 201.

"I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a veiled attempt for impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job," Mrs. Jackson Lee said...

She claimed, as reported by the Daily Caller's Chuck Ross, that Democrats who were upset over the war in Iraq "did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority..."

Mrs. Jackson Lee seems to have forgotten that she was one of 11 Democratic co-sponsors of a resolution introduced by then-Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, in June 2008, titled, "Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors." 

In January, she said that Americans have done little to help the poor, and that the word "welfare" should be replaced by "transitional-living fund."

As noted on the website DiscovertheNetworks.org, she declared in 2005 that the United States has been a constitutional republic for 400 years (not 217 years at the time), and that astronaut Neil Armstrong planted an American flag on Mars (not the moon).

She outdid herself in 2010 when she took to the House floor to say that, in Vietnam, "Victory had been achieved. Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace."

The North won the war in 1975 and absorbed the South into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 1976.

This article is reminiscent of those lists of dumb mistakes that high school students make. You know, the ones which give you a good chuckle about how amazingly stupid some teen-agers are.

But Jackson Lee is a United States Congresswoman. She is, theoretically, one of our foremost experts when it comes to understanding and implementing complex legislation.

Jackson Lee got her undergraduate degree from Yale University in 1972 and graduated from the University of Virginia Law School in 1975.

What's most mind-boggling is that at one point Jackson Lee served on the House Science Committee and on the Subcommittee overseeing space policy and NASA.

(Everybody who knows that Neil Armstrong went to the moon and not Mars would seem better qualified than her for that role.)

It certainly gives the lie to all those lectures your parents gave you about how you had to study hard to get ahead. It makes you wonder if studying hard for those history exams in high school was really worth it.

It make one question how much of a meritocracy we live in. It even makes one question the value of democracy.

About the only thing not in question here is the level of Ms. Jackson Lee's intelligence.