Just Not Said

Finally, a worthwhile protest

2013-05-21T10:06:00.000-04:00

Those indefatigable crusaders for social justice, the women of FEMEN, have been at it again. Last Friday they brought their special brand of protest to a life-size Barbie Doll house in Berlin, Germany. An excerpt from the Yahoo News article about it:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Women's rights protesters disrupted the opening of a giant pink doll's house in Berlin on Thursday, saying the Barbie "Dreamhouse Experience" objectified women.

Promoting the doll made by Mattel Inc, the house allows paying visitors to try on Barbie's clothes, play in her kitchen and have a go on her pink piano. The exhibition will be open until August 25.

A handful of protesters gathered outside the shocking pink housethat has been erected in one of central Berlin's greyest areas.

A topless woman, a member of the Femen protest group, who had the slogan "Life in plastic is not fantastic" scrawled across her chest, set fire to a Barbie doll tied to a mini crucifix.

"There's too much emphasis on becoming more beautiful and on being pretty and that puts an awful lot of pressure on girls..."

Hmm. "Life in plastic is not fantastic." It doesn't really make any sense -- plastic isn't alive, and plastic dolls are nothing but fantasy. But hey, it rhymes, and that's what counts.

We've all heard the feminists' litany of complaints about Barbie dolls before: how they emphasize domesticity and not careers, and how they present an unrealistic body image for young girls.

Of all the things for feminists to protest, this would seem to rank pretty low on the list. In some Muslim countries, they chop the clits off little girls, don't allow them to go to school, force them to cover up in burkhas, and issue edicts against them from leaving their houses unaccompanied by a man. And if a woman commits adultery, she is stoned to death.

But, protesting Barbie is evidently more important.

Put yourself in the shoes of a 6-year-old girl whose father has taken her to see a life-size replica of her favorite dollhouse. You've been eagerly looking forward to this for weeks, but when you finally get to the magical house, you're greeted by the sight of a half naked woman burning your favorite doll while it's tied to a cross. Then, when the police come to cart her off, she starts screeching hysterically.

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

Yes, the women of FEMEN are doing their bit to help little girls everywhere.

Check out these women (protesting against Berlusconi). Maybe non-FEMEN women should sue them for presenting an unrealistic image of what most women look like. How many women do you know who are this svelte?

The larger question: why is it that women protest the unrealistic body image demonstrated by Barbie dolls, but men never protest the unrealistic body images presented by superheroes? Here are Superman and Batman dolls -- are these healthy for psychologically fragile young boys?

Of course, for Superman to be built that way is understandable. After all, he had to develop those super muscles on Krypton. But Batman is supposed to just be a rich dilettante. It's a bitter pill for most of us to swallow when we realize that, at best, we're going to grow up looking a lot more like Robin:

Are Batman and Superman to blame for the current epidemic of steroid abuse among young men? Maybe my problems are all DC Comic's fault. I certainly feel a bit inadequate every time I see a picture of the Caped Crusader. Holy insecurity!

C'mon guys, let's hold a protest outside their offices tomorrow -- life in plastic is not fantastic!

So, once again, the question: why do women protest this sort of thing and not men? Are women more intrinsically silly? I wouldn't necessarily say that: men are just as silly in their own way. But they're definitely not as silly in this particular way.

How will these women feel about their youthful protests when they're 40? How many of them will look back and feel a little embarrassed about their hysterical behavior? (How many will be proud?)

These women are spoiled, addled, hypocritical, exhibitionistic morons. There, I've said it.

They're welcome to come to my house to protest that statement, though.

Just make it, you know, sometime when my wife is away.

Now that I've actually had the operation.....

2013-05-20T09:17:00.003-04:00

.....described in the previous post, my sensibilities have completely changed.

Sports seem barbaric to me now. In fact, competition of any sort no longer holds any appeal to me either. People should just stop keeping score. I realize now that it's a sickness.

This includes economic competition. We should all just cooperate, have one big common bank account -- let's call it the government -- to which everybody contributes and everybody takes.

I realize now that nobody deserves to have any more money than anyone else, no matter how much smarter he is or how much harder he's worked.

In fact, the concept of "smart" now strikes me as a social construct. There's no such thing as intelligence, no such thing as smart people and dumb people.

The idea of offending anyone with harsh truths no longer holds any appeal. I just want people to like me.

Hypocrisy no longer annoys me. I just go with the flow.

I see now that women are the equal of men, and should fill combat roles in the military.

We don't need a strong military anyway. Those other nice countries would never do anything bad. We're the bad ones.

I like the idea of open borders, unlike that horrible Jason Richwine. Whoever wants to enter our country should just come in and we should bend over for them. I now realize, doing that actually feels sort of good.

I now find the idea that the races differ in innate abilities to be offensive. In fact, from the moment I left my hospital bed, whenever anyone says anything I can't refute, I feel a slight hysteria overcome me and I have a strong urge to cry out, "I find that highly offensive!"

In fact, I now realize there is no such thing as race. But of course, if there was, it would be unacceptable to criticize any races except the white race. We can criticize them as much as we want, because they can take it.

I find myself feeling more.....maternal. Animals are people too, you know.

I also see the political situation much more clearly. If the Justice Department wants to spy on the AP, well, it does have to prevent leaks when national security is at stake (even if they planned to make that announcement themselves the next day). If the IRS targets conservatives, well, there's no reason political organizations should have tax exemption anyway -- that's the real scandal! But if President Nixon had an enemies list, I can only shudder to think of what an evil man he was.

Best of all, when I look at Barack Obama, I now see him for what he is: our Savior. (What a good person I am to feel that way about a black man!)

Life is so much simpler without testosterone clouding my thinking.

Following Angelina's lead

2013-05-17T06:36:00.000-04:00

It's a little surprising how much praise Angelina Jolie has garnered for her announcement about her double mastectomy. She's even made the cover of Time Magazine (in a suitably noble pose).

Everyone is calling her a "hero." All for taking a precautionary step to preserve her own health.

I had always thought that a hero was someone who put himself in the line of danger to protect others.

Silly me.

Jolie said in her NY Times op-ed that she now has implants. (Wasn't it sorta obvious she's had them all along?)

But seeing how much glory and approval Angelina Jolie has gotten for her procedure has inspired me to undergo a similar procedure -- in order to prevent testicular cancer.

Curiously, even though most of the men I've spoken to about this have questioned my sanity, every feminist I've spoken about this has heartily encouraged me to take this brave step.

In fact, their support has been downright enthusiastic.

Even my wife has been encouraging. She's actually asked for the byproducts of the operation, so she can carry them in her purse, as a keepsake.

Let the fulsome plaudits begin.

Should transgenders be allowed to fight as women?

2013-05-16T10:51:00.001-04:00

On Monday, the NY Times ran a highly sympathetic article about Fallon Fox, the transgendered MMA fighter who is now competing as a woman. It went on at length about Fox's struggle to come to grips with her gender dysphoria, her (his) early marriage, and her eventual acceptance of her new identity. The Times, of course, portrayed Fox as a hero(ine) in the struggle for LGBT equality, and implied that those who would question her right to fight as a woman were retrograde louts.

I don't see it as being that simple.

There are all sorts of athletic advantages a transgendered woman has over someone born a woman. For starters, men have wider shoulders and narrower hips. Wider shoulders make for better leverage when punching, and narrower hips allow for quicker pivoting. Men have larger hands and feet, the better to punch and kick with. And all that testosterone coursing through the system at an early age makes for more muscle, which even after two years of estrogen therapy, won't entirely disappear.

Think of it this way: if you took steroids for two years, then went off them for two years, you'd still be stronger than had you never taken them at all.

The NY Times is hardly a newspaper which, in other contexts, condones men beating up women. Yet, watching Fox compete against a natural born woman, one would not be able to completely escape the impression that that was what was happening.

Fox was born Boyd Burton. His father, also Boyd Burton, had a long record of run-ins with the law, including one for domestic violence. Perhaps Fox inherited this desire to beat up women, but wants to do so in a more respectable manner. Or, at least, more respectable in the eyes of the Times.

Like father, like.....daughter?

The UFC's official reaction to all the publicity has been mixed. When heavyweight Matt Mitrione publicly referred to Fox as a "lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak" the UFC temporarily suspended him. However, former MMA champion and current UFC employee Matt Hughes referred to Fox as "it," but received no censure.

Joe Rogan, the long time color commentator for the UFC, recently said in a podcast, "....She [Fox] wants to be able to fight women. I say no fucking way....I say if you had a dick at one point in time....you're a fucking man.....I don't care if you don't have a dick any more." Rogan, too, escaped censure.

To take this argument to its logical conclusion, how would the Times feel about it if, say, Brock Lesnar, a recent heavyweight champion, decided to undergo an operation and fight as a woman? Perhaps all of Lesnar's brutish posturing was merely an attempt to cover up his feminine side, which he could now fully surrender to -- while continuing, with the Times' explicit approval, to make a living at his sport.

Even after two years of estrogen, it's hard to imagine that the 6' 3", 285 pound Lesnar would be quite as fetching in a bikini as the foxy Fox pictured above. Lesnar would, however, undoubtedly be quite competitive in the women's ranks:

Randy Couture defended his heavyweight championship for the last time at age 45, in 2008. Time has finally passed him by, but it's probably not too late for him to win another championship or two as Randi Couture:

Antonio "Bigfoot" Silva is another candidate. Acromegalic women rarely become supermodels, but at least the 262 pound Silva would be in no great danger of being raped:

Kimbo Slice, despite his legendary street-fighting reputation and fearsome demeanor, turned out to be pretty much of a bust in mixed martial arts. But with the elimination of the last two letters of his first name (along with his two testes), maybe he could finally secure the championship he craved. Who knows, perhaps there's a comely lass hiding behind that beard.

What if one of these men underwent an operation, and then killed a woman in the Octagon? Would the Times view that outcome as a triumph of LGBT equality? Or would they suddenly see things in a different light?

(What would the UFC's reaction be then, for that matter? It's hard to imagine that any organization sanctioning such a fight would not be legally liable.)

I doubt that any of the guys pictured above are about to make the transition. But an honest look at the fairness of women having to fight transgendered women must take that possibility into account.

Clarification

2013-05-15T12:32:00.004-04:00

Lori Lerner of the IRS has now informed us that even though the IRS targeted nonprofit groups with "Tea Party" and "taxes" in their names, those "mistakes" were "in no way due to any political or partisan rationale."

Now that that's been settled, there are a few other misconceptions I'd like to clear up:

Ariel Castro may have kidnapped and raped those three young girls, but his actions were in no way due to any sexual motive.

Two days ago Anthony Chiasson, formerly of SAC Capital Advisors, and founder of Level Global Investors, was found guilty of insider trading and sentenced to six and a half years. Please bear in mind, his crime was in no way due to greed.

The Hatfields and McCoys may have been engaged in a long term vendetta, but neither side was motivated by a desire for revenge.

Yesterday I had three helpings of apple crisp with ice cream. However, my actions are in no way due to either self-indulgence or piggishness.

"The Heretic at Heritage"

2013-05-14T20:30:00.004-04:00

Excellent summation of the Jason Richwine situation, from Pat Buchanan.

Fat scandal at Abercrombie and Fitch

2013-05-14T06:19:00.000-04:00

A recent Yahoo article described how people are objecting to the fact that Abercrombie & Fitch only offers women's clothes up to size 10.

CEO Mike Jeffries started the controversy by being too honest in a 2006 interview:

“[Sex appeal is] almost everything. That’s why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other than that....A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”

Jeffries is simply marketing his particular brand of snob appeal, not unlike a host of other retailers who want people to think that they are joining some sort of exclusive club by wearing their clothing, or their watches, or by driving their cars. It's an age old technique, and hardly unique to Abercrombie.

Nonetheless, Change.org is now circulating a petition urging consumers to boycott Abercrombie products until they offer larger clothing sizes.

I'm not quite sure I understand the logic here. Who exactly would get behind this boycott? For the most part, plus-sized people. But they weren't able to shop there anyway because Abercrombie wouldn't sell to them in the first place. Does anyone seriously expect skinny people -- for whom wearing Abercrombie clothes is an affirmation of their attractiveness -- to boycott the company in solidarity with their fat brethren?

Good luck with that.

It would make as much sense to organize a boycott of Ferraris on the grounds that they discriminate against poor people. That'll show 'em -- no more poor people will be buying their cars!

In the CBS telecast embedded in the article linked above, an attractive newscaster stands in front of an Abercrombie store and asks three women what kind of message the CEO is sending to young women.

An obese woman answers, "It tells them that they need to be a certain size in order to appreciate their body, and that's not true."

Technically, what the woman says is correct: you can enjoy your own body no matter what your size: you can have all the pleasure that derives from masturbating and eating and lolling around in the sun and waddling down the street and belly flopping into a pool. But the odds are that others won't appreciate your body as much if you're fat.

A slightly overweight woman responds, "The average woman isn't like a size ten, or a six, you know, there's full-figured women out there, and they shouldn't have to, you know, be judged by this man."

This woman should realize that she is judged by every single person she meets. Most people probably don't think harsh thoughts or castigate her for being overweight. They probably don't even notice her. Other women don't perceive her as a threat because she wouldn't attract their husbands. (I suppose you could consider that a positive judgment.) And guys probably don't give her a second look, which, like it or not, is itself a harsh judgment. If she doesn't like it, she can always lose weight.

Jeffries merely gave voice to what everybody thinks.

Although it would be nice if people were equally attracted to fatties, most simply aren't: that's human nature. And if we accept the premise that gay people can't help but be attracted to whom they're attracted to, then neither should we blame anyone else for whom they're attracted -- or not attracted -- to.

It's particularly galling to hear CBS criticize Abercrombie on these grounds. CBS, which hires not only actresses but even newscasters based on their looks. CBS, which broadcasts commercials for all sorts of products -- including clothes -- featuring beautiful slender models. CBS, which airs motion pictures featuring chiseled movie stars. (What kind of message does all that send?)

I'm not even sure that not offering plus sizes is a wise business decision. It means forfeiting a potentially lucrative market.

Then again, Abercrombie's market capitalization is now 4.2 billion, and the stock (ANF) is trading at its yearly high. So maybe aiming at a niche market is good business.

Of course, CBS, with a market cap of 30.4 billion, is also trading at its yearly high. Evidently the hypocrisy business can be quite profitable too.

Mud

2013-05-12T13:23:00.001-04:00

Mud had gotten 98% and 88% positive ratings from critics and audiences, respectively, on Rottentomatoes. I'd never seen a rating that high before, so saw the movie last night.

It's about two boys who meet a stranger hiding out on an island in the Mississippi. He tells them some tall tales, and some turn out to be true.

The movie is better than other coming of age movies for the same reason Stand By Me was better than The Goonies: it is more real. The characters, the setting, the plot, and the dialogue of Mud are all believable. None of the adult characters are too good, or too bad, and all are plausible. They're all "white trash," yet the movie does not condescend to them.

The grittiness of the setting isn't romanticized, yet it also doesn't detract from the essentially romantic nature of the movie.

During the previous decade, Matthew McConnaughey made a career as a leading man in sappy romantic comedies co-starring the likes of Jennifer Lopez and Kate Hudson and Penelope Cruz. Since 2010, he's specialized in more offbeat roles, playing creepy types with a hint of menace, which he does well. That ability serves him well in Mud: at the beginning, it's unclear if he's going to turn out more like Max Cady, or Shane.

Mud was written and directed by Jeff Nichols, who grew up in Arkansas. He said he wanted to capture a disappearing culture. Some of the reviewers likened the movie to an updated Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn; Nichols has said that he is influenced by Mark Twain.

Movies described as being "about love, and honesty, and growing up" usually turn out to be about corniness, sentimentality, and a leftist view of the world. This one actually is about love, which it examines honestly: how it goes sour, how it goes stale, and how it is misplaced. It's about honesty, which it examines lovingly: the two central characters are the young boys who have not yet learned how to lie, either to themselves or to others. And it's about growing up, which cannot happen painlessly.

That description sounds pretentious, but the movie is not. See it.

Is American citizenship worth nothing?

2013-05-11T17:03:00.001-04:00

There was a somewhat impassioned debate on a swimming website recently about whether and how swimming scholarships to foreign athletes should be allowed. At the moment there are no restrictions, but there is a groundswell of sentiment here for reserving such scholarships for Americans. (There are no foreign universities which offer swimming scholarships to American students.)

My initial reaction was that publicly-funded universities should not be giving away American tax dollars to foreign athletes, but that private colleges should be allowed to do as they please.

A friend, Bob Smartt, suggested that we limit foreign scholarships to three per team and also set an upper age limit, so that foreign swimmers have to swim against Americans their own age, and we not have the phenomenon of 20-year-old Americans having to compete at NCAA's against 25-year-old foreigners. (He also pointed out that virtually every private college gets all sorts of grants from the government for research, etc.)

That sounds reasonable to me, though I'd probably limit it to one or two scholarships for foreign swimmers per team.

America is far too generous with both their scholarships and their citizenships. We're generous with both because we can afford to be, but no country which gives away its wealth can remain wealthy for long.

Our border security is lax simply because our economy is strong enough to withstand the invasion of the lower IQ's who come here seeking opportunity and/or welfare.

Strength begets prosperity, which begets self-indulgence, which attracts invaders, which eventually brings the downfall of the empire. It's happened before, and will happen again.

We should be more like the Swiss, who require that you live in their country for 17 years before they even consider you for citizenship. At that point they ask your neighbors about you and you have to prove that you would be a worthwhile addition to their country.

Or perhaps we should follow Mexico's lead. At the same time they demand we open our borders to them, they close their own borders to their southern neighbors. In Mexico, anybody who enters the country illegally has committed a felony punishable by two years in jail. Anybody who enters the country a second time is subject to a ten year jail sentence. Law enforcement personnel at every level are obligated to enforce Mexico's immigration laws, and all citizens must carry an identification card.

Mexico's legal immigration policy is that new citizens are allowed in only "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." They must have "the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for that of any dependents. Foreigners can be barred from entering if it is found that their numbers "affect the equilibrium of national demographics" and "if they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." A Mexican who marries a foreigner just so that the foreigner can get the equivalent of a green card is himself subject to five years imprisonment.

We are the only country in the world whose immigration policy is based on what is good for the immigrant rather than what is good for our country.

Ariel

2013-05-10T11:44:00.001-04:00

To continue with my recent series on sociopaths who don't need alerts.....here's Ariel Castro (in case you're not sick of the nonstop coverage of his crime by now). A recent NY Post article about his "suicide note" caught my eye.

We don't really have to know any more details about Castro to know that he was a sociopath. But I was curious to see how many different facets of his sociopathy would emerge.

In his note he had evidently scoffed at his victims' stupidity in getting into his car in the first place. (See? It was their fault for being so stupid.) A sociopath will always find a way to blame his victims (and thus, by implication, escape blame himself).

Castro said that he was a sex addict, and that he needed help. "Sex addiction" is a "disease" of those who have next to no impulse control in the first place -- like sociopaths. And to say that he needed help exudes misplaced self-pity, another sociopathic specialty.

Castro regularly beat his late wife, and even kept her tied up in the basement. Sociopaths always want to dominate and control.

When a hospital worker came to her aid after she had returned their multiple times with injuries from Castro's beatings, and developed a personal relationship with her, Castro accused the man of molesting his daughters. (The court dismissed all but four of the 27 charges, and the man was given a suspended sentence, although it appears he was innocent of all the charges.) There are no depths to which a sociopath will not stoop to accomplish his aims.

It is ironic that Castro himself used "check" his daughters to make sure their virginity was intact. (A sociopath will always accuse others of what he himself is guilty of.)

While doing all of this, Castro would often play salsa tunes on his bass guitar at local nightclubs, and to those who knew him casually, appeared perfectly normal. He also worked as a part time bus driver and was described as a "great guy" by a couple of his neighbors. A sociopath can always put on a mask of congeniality when it suits him.

And look at that baby face (above). Castro's not handsome, but on the other hand, he doesn't look like a monster, either. (Real monsters, i.e., sociopaths, rarely do.)

FInally, even though Castro wrote a "suicide note," he didn't kill himself. (Sociopaths rarely commit suicide unless they've been caught and are about to lose everything; Castro hadn't been caught as of 2004, when he wrote the note.)

As I said, the only piece of information that you need to know about his sociopathy is the fact that he imprisoned those girls for ten years. But it's always informative to see the other aspects of someone's sociopathy at play.

The thing to remember about sociopaths is, every sociopath has every trait of sociopathy, whether or not you witness all those traits in action. Sociopathy is alway all-encompassing. I think of this every time I hear someone excuse a sociopath's behavior by saying something like, "Oh, he has a dark side, but don't we all? Anyway, he has a lot of good qualities too."

Ariel Castro had a lot of "nice" qualities too. He enjoyed playing his guitar at local nightspots. He played with neighborhood children, even giving them rides on his four wheeler. He was a responsible bus driver who was a local homeowner.

Sure, he had a dark side. But really, don't we all? I mean, why do you have to focus on just his bad side? He had his good points too.

"The Essex blonde...who's officially smarter than Albert Einstein!"

2013-05-08T21:09:00.000-04:00

A friend sent this article about a British girl, Lauren Marbe, who is evidently from a lower middle class background and has normal (plebeian) tastes, but whose IQ has been tested at 161.

The article, from the Mail Online, has a somewhat breathlesss tone, as if the author can't quite believe that such a towering intellect as Marbe would come across like such a normal girl, the type who likes to put blonde highlights in her hair and watch the usual run of TV shows -- although she does plan to apply to Cambridge, where she would like to study architecture

As far as her being smarter than Einstein, I think we'll just have to wait and let history be the judge of that.

But as ridiculous as the comparison of Marbe to Einstein is, the most annoying thing about the article is the chart it provides listing the IQ's of the following famous people:

Charles Dickens - 180

Dr. David Livingstone - 170

Charles Darwin - 165

Stephen Hawking - 160

Quentin Tarantino 160

Bill Gates - 160

Albert Einstein - 160

Sharon Stone - 154

Bill Clinton - 145

Shakira - 140

JFK - 119

These IQ figures are supposedly excerpted from a well known list of estimated IQ's of historical figures by American psychologist Catharine Cox Miles. The only problem is, Miles died in 1984 (I looked her up), so she couldn't have come up with the numbers for Hawking, Tarantino, Gates, Stone, Clinton, or Shakira.

Some of those numbers are self-reported, and therefore highly suspect. Sharon Stone has claimed an IQ of 160 (not 154), but she also said that she went to a MENSA school as a child, and it turned out that those schools did not exist when she would have been at an age to attend. (Sociopath alert!)

Quentin Tarantino's IQ has been bruited about ever since he directed Pulp Fiction, but it's unclear what kind of test it was, and what kind of conditions it was administered under. Since it was his mother who originally boasted about his IQ, my guess is that she is the one who gave him the test.

As far as Hawking's and Gates's IQ's, those sound like suspiciously round numbers that were just randomly assigned to them. It's hard to believe that they themselves went to the trouble to take the tests and then publicize the results. (If you're the world's leading physicist or the world's richest man, you don't really have to boast about your IQ.)

Bill Clinton's number actually seems too low. He may be a sociopath, but he was an awfully smart one. Maybe some of that perceived intelligence was just glibness passing itself off as smarts, but his command of facts (as well as fiction, when it suited him) was legendary.

As far as the 119 figure for JFK before, that number is probably based on the "Gentleman's C" average Kennedy got at Harvard. Yes, he was a lazy playboy who didn't apply himself when young, but that only means that he was lazy. I've known plenty of people with IQ's in that range, and as Lloyd Bentsen once famously said, they were no Jack Kennedy's.

Shakira's 140 sounds like a number her agent came up with in an attempt to broaden her appeal. I Googled her IQ, but could find no proof of it, only several mentions of the number. It seems that once such a number gets attached to someone famous, it just sticks, no questions asked. (Shakira's hips may not lie, but most likely someone is lying, about her IQ.)

And how does Livingstone get ranked ahead of Einstein and Darwin? He discovered the source of the Nile, so deserves high scores for bravery, but bravery does not necessarily connote intelligence, in fact sometimes it can mean the opposite. His score sounds almost like a misinterpretation of Stanley's famous quote: "Dr. Livingstone, 170 IQ I presume?"

And speaking of presumptuous, who was it who felt qualified to judge the IQ's of Einstein, Darwin, and Dickens? It's always seemed to me that it's very hard for anyone to estimate the IQ of someone far smarter than he. (How can you judge someone you don't fully understand?)

Assigning an iQ to Charles Dickens which is 15 points higher than Charles Darwin seems both arbitrary and meaningless. How could anybody possibly know that? Also, Dickens may have been a great writer, but Darwin is the by far more the important, and influential thinker. He came up with a unique and revolutionary theory which changed the way humans saw themselves.

I've heard that any points beyond 145 don't really make all that much difference for creative geniuses anyway, and that what distinguishes really special people is some unique undefinable spark, a special twist of mind, that can't be measured by an ordinary test. This could well be true.

Perhaps Lauren Marbe has that spark. Only time will tell.

Oh, and for the overly gullible writer of the Mail Online article: my IQ is 350. Hey, I said it, so it must be true, right? You believed Sharon Stone and Shakira's self-reported numbers, so believe mine.

At 350, I'm smarter than Dickens and Darwin put together.

I may not have produced anything more of value than Marbe has of yet, but that doesn't matter. It's the number that counts.

Dime Pieces Part III

2013-05-06T22:28:00.002-04:00

The other day my son was raving about Donna Reed's beauty, especially that still of her smoking from From Here to Eternity:

A little while later it hit me that I used to think that my wife looked a little like Reed, at least in profile. I pondered what this all meant.

I then Skyped my son back, to inform him of the resemblance, figuring it would get a rise.

He didn't miss a beat: "So you're telling me I have the first half of the Oedipus Complex? Here all along I'd thought that I only had the second half."

A few minutes later he finished the conversation by saying, "Excuse me, I have to go listen to The End, by the Doors."

"White Hair, Wrinkles Aren't Valid ID at These Drinking Establishments"

2013-05-06T06:35:00.003-04:00

An article in the Wall Street Journal from a month ago pointed out that certain drinking establishments are now carding everyone (even 75-year-olds) because to do otherwise is "profiling."

The absolute, final abdication of common sense in favor of political correctness.

Things I actually heard at Goldman Sachs

2013-05-05T13:10:00.000-04:00

Yesterday's post about the funniest things supposedly overheard in the Goldman Sachs elevator made me think of things I actually did hear when I worked there:

(On the occasion of discussing a potential hire -- who happened to be female -- for the trading desk, in a meeting of about ten guys): "Hey, close the door....Listen, we got a nice little boys club here. Seriously, why ruin it?"

(While in a taxi passing by some homeless people on the street): "They didn't do their homework, fuck 'em."

(On the subject of a not-particularly charismatic salesman): "You know that guy married the first girl who fucked him."

(After a bunch of the back office ladies ordered out a Chinese lunch for New Years): "I wouldn't want to be a toilet in the women's room around 2PM."

(Bitterly, about a partner who happened to be overweight): "I'd love to fuck that guy up the ass with a ten foot pole. It'd take a big pole 'cause he's got such a fat ass."

(About a Jewish coworker someone complained about): "Hey, don't blame me, I'm German. We did our part."

(About a girl of moderate attractiveness who hoped to meet a guy on her European vacation): "They got eyes over there, don't they?"

(Upon finding out that a former Princeton classmate had been a star athlete): "I fucked his girlfriend!" (while raising his arms above his head in triumph).

(From a boss, about a trader he fired): "I keep his Monroe Trader [a bond calculator] underneath my desk just so I can remind myself every day that I fired that guy."

All of the above quotes are from one person, an unquestionable sociopath. (A sociopath's personality is a witch's brew of arrogance and hatred, a mix often expressed as spite.)

However, the following quotes are from three other people (they each get one quote):

(Gesturing out the 26th floor window to the world at large): "They're stupid. We can take their money."

(About an idealistic guy who'd left the firm because he was dismayed by its money-oriented culture): "That guy was always asking how what we were doing would benefit the people we were dealing with." (The speaker was shaking his head in bafflement at that attitude).

(About a black partner who often came into the lunchroom to take food which didn't belong to him): "It's the hardware, not the software."

I said in that previous post that I didn't believe the quotes from that site were real. But if I hadn't heard the above quotes myself, I might wonder whether they were real, or if someone just made them up to make the place look bad. (These quotes weren't chosen just to be funny, but more to give the flavor of the place.)

But I still doubt that the so-called overheard-in-the-elevator quotes are real, since most of them are more macroeconomic, so to speak, about general differences between the rich and the poor, which is generally not what Goldman workers talk about on a daily basis. They, like corporate employees everywhere, are far more likely to talk about what happened at the office that day, or about how much they dislike a particular coworker.

John, Paul, George, and Ringo were conservatives

2013-05-04T14:45:00.000-04:00

The Beatles evolved from singing pop love songs in the early 60's (I Saw Her Standing There, All My Loving) to a more angst-y style (Michelle, Nowhere Man, Eleanor Rigby), then to a more psychedelic style (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Magical Mystery Tour).

Finally, by the end of the decade, they had become much more experimental. They were by turns whimsical (Yellow Submarine, Savoy Truffle) and sentimental (Julia, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Good Night), satirical (Back in the U.S.S.R.) and scathing (Sexy Sadie, Piggies).

The Beatles always seemed to be on the cutting edge of social enlightenment. They moved from youthful rebellion (Roll Over Beethoven) to experimenting with LSD, then moved on to transcendental meditation with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. And John Lennon was in the vanguard of the peace movement.

But as socially liberal as they were, one thing they never evolved into was Marxists. The Rolls Royce that John Lennon bought (and had painted with Day Glo designs), the Aston Martins that Paul McCartney favored, and the collection of Ferraris amassed by George Harrison would have brought a blush to the most shameless Wall Streeter. And all four Beatles bought country estates that fairly screamed "landed gentry."

They certainly weren't into redistribution, which they expressed their opinion about in Taxman:

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!

(The Beatles actually pre-dated the Tea Party as far as these sensibilities.)

By 1968 they had also acquired a jaundiced view of advocates of leftist violence, which they sang about in Revolution 1:

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out in
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright

Alright, alright, alright, alright, alright
Alright, alright, alright

"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"?

(A pretty accurate assessment of how not to get laid.)

"But if you want money for people with minds that hate, All I can tell you is brother you have to wait?"

They correctly identified the true haters of their day. (Today it's the most hateful, spiteful, unpleasant, and rude people who constantly accuse the other side of being haters.)

Would that there were a group as influential as the Beatles today to steer young people the right way.

Byron's inspiration

2013-05-04T05:52:00.001-04:00

Steve Sailer ran a Youtube video, "Rowdy Ghetto Woman Throws Her Baby So She Can Fight On Bus," the other day as a counterpoint to the Hart-Risley hypothesis that ghetto children don't learn as quickly because their parents don't talk enough.

Different people have had different reactions to the lady in the video. I was reminded of a certain Lord Byron poem:

She Walks in Beauty

She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that’s best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes;
Thus mellowed to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.

One shade the more, one ray the less,
Had half impaired the nameless grace
Which waves in every raven tress,
Or softly lightens o’er her face;
Where thoughts serenely sweet express,
How pure, how dear their dwelling-place.

And on that cheek, and o’er that brow,
So soft, so calm, yet eloquent,
The smiles that win, the tints that glow,
But tell of days in goodness spent,
A mind at peace with all below,
A heart whose love is innocent!

"The 20 funniest Goldman Sachs elevator gossips"

2013-05-04T05:20:00.000-04:00

Guy Davis sent along this collection of quotes supposedly overheard in the Goldman Sachs elevator.

I highly doubt that these quotes were actually overheard in the elevator there; they sound much more like some writer's conception of how people who have successfully devoted their lives to making money must talk. I worked there for twelve years, and the people I knew there were just not this witty. Plus, anybody overheard boasting this way would probably have been fired.

Still, it's an amusing collection.

Dime pieces, Part II

2013-05-01T08:43:00.000-04:00

At one point during my conversation on the subject of beautiful women with my son, I asked him if he thought Jaime Pressly was a ten:

He screwed up his face and thought for a few moments. Eventually, he said, "No. She's a hard nine. I mean, she's pretty much perfect, but.....no."

I know exactly what he meant. Pressly is the embodiment of sexiness, but there is something just a little hard and cheap about her. I have no idea what she's like, so this is of course unfair, but she looks neither intelligent nor soulful.

To be a ten, a woman has to present the illusion that she is good, and kind, but maybe still has a naughty side. Perhaps more than anything else, she has to give the impression that he is smart enough to appreciate you. She must appear, somehow, better than other people -- not just better-looking.

Mischa Barton, when she first appeared on the scene, presented that illusion:

Barton looks as if she's capable of the full gamut of emotions, including sadness, whereas Jaime Pressly always seems to be wearing a half-sneer that said, "Let's par-tee!" (Pressly's expression, in a weird sort of way, sometimes reminds me of Snoop Dogg's.)

Donna Reed was good at presenting the required illusion. Even in middle age, she was capable of projecting a sort of Glinda-the-Good-Witch level of benevolence:

Yet when young, she was also capable of sultriness:

And of projecting a sort of worldly, skeptical, even rebellious intelligence:

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that it helps anyone's looks if she can make it look as if there's something behind her magnificent facade, even if there's not.

I'm not even sure I agree with my son about Pressly. And I'm guessing that had he seen her in person, he'd have felt differently. But I understand his hesitation.

Dime pieces

2013-04-29T15:06:00.000-04:00

I Skyped with my son yesterday. He had read the post from Saturday morning about how women with blonde hair and big boobs are consistently overrated, so we got onto the subject of rating women.

He said that nothing made him sicker than hearing guys describe girls as "tens" when in fact they're only eights or nines. To prove his point, he asked me how many tens I had known; I was only able to list five or six. I was hesitant to tell him that I had thought his mother had been among them, knowing how he would react, but then went ahead and said it anyway, just to annoy him.

He rewarded me with the expected groan of disgust (no son ever sees his mother in those terms).

I asked him how many tens he'd known. He said he'd only known one, and had maybe seen two or three others. He repeated that it sickened him to hear guys throw that ranking around so freely. I told him he seemed to be taking this awfully seriously, as if these guys had somehow committed a horrible sacrilege. I added that he reminded me of nothing so much as a Muslim who'd just heard Mohammed insulted.

He replied that from now on he was going to declare a fatwa against guys who threw the term "dime piece" (meaning, a ten) around too freely.

I mentioned a woman I had once dated when I was single whom I thought might have been a ten (he had seen her photo). He said, no, she was a hard nine, but not a ten. I pointed out that this woman had driven me absolutely crazy when I had first met her.

My son said that you could want to go to bed with a nine just as much as you might with a ten, or possibly even more, since there was something so breathtaking about a ten that the feeling you got was more one of awe than of lust.

I thought of the woman in the photo and asked, "Can a girl be a ten if she's really dumb?"

My son replied, "No, because if she was really a ten, you'd have no idea whether she was dumb or not."

I thought about that for a moment and admitted that he was right, since everything that comes out of a ten's mouth, no matter how stupid, sounds like magic.

I recounted a conversation I'd had with his uncle about forty years ago. I'd been talking about a girl I'd had an insane (unrequited) crush on in high school, and his uncle had asked me, "How long did it take, from the moment you first saw her, before you were completely smitten?" I had never been asked this question before, so had to think about it. I then replied, "Honestly? Around ten or fifteen seconds." (Never let it be said I'm not superficial.)

His uncle had cackled with delight (in obvious agreement about the timing).

My son said, "That sounds about right. It's not one or two seconds, and it's not like it takes a whole minute, either. You look at her once, then look back, and then look back again, sort of in disbelief. And by that point you're like, 'I can't believe a face can look that good'."

To shift gears, I asked my son how he would rate himself. He shrugged and replied, "Around an eight and a half."

I said, "That sounds about right, because I'm an 8.6 or an 8.7."

He laughed, "Dad, if I'm an eight and a half, you're about a four and a quarter."

The thing is, I actually agree with him. (Not about my rating, but about the concept of a ten.) A ten represents perfection, or a type of beauty so extraordinary that it's even better than (bland) perfection. By definition, none of us can have known any more than five or six of them in our lives.

I suppose you could argue that with a ten point ranking system, each number should represent roughly ten percent of the population. But that would take all the romance out of the concept of a ten.

The distribution of looks is probably better represented by a fairly steep bell curve, with the vast majority of the population falling into the three to seven range.

When I told my son that this discussion proved that he was in fact a romantic at heart, he reminded me that he was the one who had gone to the local bookstore and taken the Marquis de Sade books out of the adult section and put them in the "Teen Paranormal Romance" section (where they keep the Twilight books).

He chortled, "Can you imagine a teenage girl picking up Justine and saying, 'I like that name, this sounds like a nice book, I think I'll get it'."

I suggested to my son that he was struggling to come to grips with who he really is: a romantic, or a cynical practical joker.

He replied brusquely that the two don't conflict, and there was no reason he couldn't be both.

He's probably right.

Sociopath alert: Susan Stillwaggon

2013-04-28T12:48:00.004-04:00

It seems that these days we read on a regular basis about sociopaths who fake illnesses in order to gain sympathy and attention. This particular offshoot of sociopathy is sometimes called Munchhausen's Syndrome, and demonstrates how sociopaths have an endless craving for love and sympathy, two emotions they never feel themselves. There is a variation of this syndrome called Munchhausen's-by-proxy, in which people make their children sick in order to gain the sympathy and attention they crave.

Yesterday the NY Post ran an article with the headline, Mom told 9-year-old son he had cancer, collected thousands in donations: cops.

An excerpt:

A South Jersey woman told her 9-year-old son he had a deadly cancer when he was really just fine — and led him on by holding fund-raisers and bake sales where she raked in thousands to pay for his sham care, cops said.

Susan Stillwaggon, 35, duped her son, Nick, her husband, and her entire Pennsauken community into believing the boy had Stage 3 Hodgkin’s lymphoma, cops said.

The boy thought he was terminally ill, while she accepted about $2,000 from donors, cops said.

Even her trucker husband Chuck believed his son was dying of cancer, cops said.....

The mom admitted the lie to cops but wouldn’t say it was for money troubles, police said.

“Her response to me was, ‘I need help,’ ” Pennsauken Police Detective Cheryl Duffy said.

Stillwaggon is now hospitalized. Her mom told a local news station she had suffered a breakdown.

She faces charges of theft by deception, forgery, endangering the welfare of a child and using a child to commit a criminal offense.

Recently I seem to have specialized in pointing out sociopaths who don't really need pointing out. I realize it's more interesting to hear about people you might not have suspected, but Susan Stillwaggon illustrates too many facets of sociopathy to pass up.

All you really need to know about her to know she's a sociopath is that she would tell her 9-year-old son he was dying of cancer when he wasn't. Most of us lie to 9-year-olds to make them feel better about themselves. The depth of depravity to which you'd have to sink to tell any child -- let alone your own son -- that he was dying when he was not is unfathomable to those unfamiliar with sociopathy.

Or, all you'd need to know is that she did the same to her husband, making him think that his son was dying. Imagine how he felt. (And imagine how he feels now.)

Or, all you'd need to know to ascertain her sociopathy is that Stillwaggon basked in the warm glow of sympathy she got from her community, knowing all the while that it was based on a false premise, but enjoying it anyway. Most of us cannot imagine feeling anything but the most extreme nervousness -- and then guilt and shame, after perpetrating such a hoax. But Stillwaggon is immune to those feelings.

Finally, when she was caught, her response, rather than a shamefaced admission of guilt, was to say, "I need help," and check into a hospital, as if she were somehow the victim of this entire episode. Sociopaths, when caught, often feign some form of mental illness, as if to prove that they had no choice but to act as they did. It's essentially the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defense.

Another example of this would be Kenneth Bianchi, one of the two Hillside Stranglers, who faked a multiple personality disorder after he was caught, and actually had most of the doctors fooled for a while.

Finally, Stillwaggon illustrates yet another facet of sociopathy: that they come in all shapes and sizes and colors. Here is the picture the Post ran of her with her son:

She looks like every other doting suburban mom, not someone you'd cross the street to avoid. But inside that seemingly affectionate exterior lies the same absolute absence of compassion that serial killers have. (The only difference between Stillwaggon and them is that she doesn't need violence to get off sexually.)

The natural reaction to hearing about this case is to feel sympathy for the son; and the son, more than anyone else in this sordid story, certainly deserves sympathy. But I wouldn't necessarily bet that he doesn't grow up to be a sociopath himself. Hopefully he has gotten enough love from his father, and established enough of a bond with him, to prevent sociopathy. But if the father works as a trucker, that means he's absent much of the time, and the son's main influence has been the mother. So it's hard to see how he could have established the kind of solid bond with a parent it takes for a child to grow up to be decent.

At this point the ideal scenario would be for Mr. Stillwaggon to divorce his wife and get sole custody of their son, and for Susan to spend some time in jail (preferably, with other inmates who know about her crime). But it may already be too late for the son.

Why parents no longer give their daughters these names.

2013-04-27T17:45:00.002-04:00

Just stumbled across a mildly interesting article, 10 Vintage Girls' Names: Unique Names You Don't Hear Anymore, on the site mommynoire.com.

What made it more interesting was to think about why these names have declined in popularity. I think it's generally a function of the most famous people with that name, an association that is often hard to shake. For instance, in the last sixty years, few parents have named their sons "Adolf."

In some of the cases I couldn't come up with an explanation, but in others, it seemed glaringly obvious.

"Joyce" has gone from a top 20's name back in the 40's to #969 in popularity now. The most famous Joyces are Kilmer (who was actually a man) and James Joyce, whose surname it was. There haven't been any recent Joyce's to inspire.

"Roseanne" is now ranked at #14,265. This one seemed a little easier to explain. Who is the most famous Roseanne you can think of? Barr, right? How many parents do you think look at their sweet little bundle of joy and hope she turns out to be like THE Roseanne?

Or, for that matter Rosie (Roseann) O'Donnell?

"Hattie," now at #993. (Who knew it was still that high?)

"Dorothy" was popular in the first half of the 20th century, but now ranks at #937. Who's the first person to come to mind when you hear that name? The one who went to Oz? Well, that movie was made in 1939, and has long since peaked. And the most famous real person? Dorothy Lamour? Dorothy Parker? Both long gone. Even Dorothy Hamill is no longer known to people of child-bearing age. So the name languishes.

"Madeline" was popular in the early 1990's but has since lost its popularity. Those popular Madeline books by Ludwig Bemelmans may have lost some of their influence since the start of the internet era in the late 90's.

"Willow" was popular in the early 1900's but has pretty much disappeared since the 1960's. (Is that name too pliable-sounding for current feminist sensibilities?)

"Pamela" was a top 30 name from 1937 to 1971, but is no longer. The most prominent Pamela of recent years has been Anderson. But she didn't achieve Baywatch fame until 1992, so her I-don't-want-my-daughter-to-grow-up-like-that effect doesn't explain the decline of the name starting in 1971.

"Ann" was a top 100 name from 1899 to 1973, but now ranks at #996. Not sure why.

"Leona," formerly a popular name, is now ranked #929. This one is real easy: the existence of that sociopath Leona Helmsley, "The Queen of Mean," was enough to dissuade any parent from choosing that name for their daughter.

"Janet," now #951. Again, fairly easy. The two most prominent Janets of recent years have been Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's Attorney General:

And Janet Napolitano, the current director of Homeland Security:

While both women have had undeniably successful careers, neither quite matches the feminine appeal of Janet Leigh, whose career peaked in 1960, with Psycho:

It does seem parents are more moved by pulchritude than power.

Predictions for the near future: we'll see more Keira's [Knightley] and Angelina's [Jolie], and fewer Amanda's [Knox] and Casey's [Anthony].

Pavlovian reaction

2013-04-27T07:50:00.002-04:00

Just saw this picture on Iowahawk's blog:

He has a great blog, but I have to differ with his taste in women.

All my life I've been surrounded by guys who see blonde hair and big tits and automatically go crazy. The women above do absolutely nothing for me.

First of all, none have the kind of refined features you could describe as beautiful. (They put me in mind of Cinderella's stepsisters.) Secondly, they all look stupid. (They look sorta like porn stars, but less intelligent.)

Third -- and this is most damning in my book -- they all look as if they expect you to burst through your pants at the mere sight of them.

There's nothing less attractive than a woman who parades around thinking herself a sex symbol.

I know, I know, attraction is purely subjective, so for me to rant about this is obviously silly. And I understand that most guys prefer large breasts to small ones, which has something to do with why more women get implants than breast reduction surgery.

But to me, none of those women look like they'd be worth the trouble, and even if they were no trouble at all, I still couldn't be bothered.

Another thing: a woman's beauty is a function of her her cheekbones, lips, and eyes. Hair color has as little to do with real beauty as the style of hat a woman might happen to be wearing. I've never understood guys who feel that blonde hair equals beauty.

Every time I go to some place like Spain or Yugoslavia (that's what it was called when I was last there), I always end up wishing I'd grown up there instead, because the women there generally don't strive for the over-stuffed, over-proud look of the Miss Valvolines above.

And, I wouldn't have had to grow up feeling like an outcast whenever all my buddies would go ape over some wannabe Pamela Anderson. (It's easy for a grown man to say "She does nothing for me," harder for a 15-year-old boy.)

How soft have we become?

2013-04-24T11:47:00.000-04:00

Reading about the Chechens, especially here, has driven home how pampered, by contrast, our country is. But Chechnya is a small place, so not an apt comparison to the mighty U.S.A. Perhaps a better comparison would be China, a nation which more resembles an early stage Roman Empire, compared to our late one.

The best indication that a nation is in decline is usually the softness and self-indulgence of its people. (Before the fall of the Roman Empire the Romans became known for their gluttony.) This chart shows that we are, literally, the softest -- i.e., most obese -- nation on earth, with over 30% of our citizens being obese. (Mexico ranks second, with 24%.)

There is a great deal of focus in this country on ensuring our safety. From cradle to grave, a huge amount of ingenuity has gone into eliminating various dangers. If any company has manufactured a product which might possibly contribute to a mishap, no matter how much we are at fault, we are encouraged to sue that company. In China, they would scoff at such abnegation of personal responsibility.

One of the dangers we try to eliminate is airborne toxins and pollutants. In China, they pay scant attention to such things, and just continue to ramp up production instead.

In China, if you are convicted of corruption, they shoot you. In this country, serial killers are more likely to be given a life sentence than a death sentence. And if they are given a death sentence, they get free medical and dental care and three squares a day for upwards of ten years before they are finally executed.

The Roman Empire overextended itself. We are similarly overextended, thinking mistakenly that we can bring enlightenment to unenlightened corners of the globe. The Chinese have a huge army, which they use only to ruthlessly stamp out rebellions on their borders.

The fall of the Roman Empire was preceded by the rise of feminism. Feminism has been on the rise in this country for the past forty years. (I'm not making a value judgment here, merely pointing out a fact.)

The focus of this country is on redistribution rather than production. Much energy is expended on providing for the less productive, rather than encouraging the productive. It's certainly nice to have a strong social safety net, but such an inviting net is not conducive to the long term strength, or unity, of a country.

Worse, there is a lot of energy expended denying that some are productive, and others are not -- or that some are more intelligent and law-abiding than others. The near-hysterical promulgation of such propaganda also makes for a shaky foundation for a society.

We have a program called "No Child Left Behind." The Chinese educational philosophy might better be described as, "Let's Leave the Western Children Behind."

China guards its borders jealously. Anyone caught in the country illegally is likely to be charged with spying, which is punishable by death. We punish illegal aliens by giving them a path to naturalization.

China has an upper class formed in large part by crony capitalism, but they also have an expanding middle class, which is the backbone of any nation. We have a shrinking middle class. Both of our political parties pay lip service to the middle class. But the Republicans promote policies which in fact benefit the upper class, and the Democrats promote policies which benefit the lower class. Both are prescriptions for disaster.

There are still pockets in America which seem unspoiled. Mormons still seem to have something of a pioneer mentality. They work hard, don't indulge themselves, and don't bother with much of the silliness which has overtaken the rest of the country (even if they have their own versions). The Amish are considered curiosities these days, but at least they have not let themselves get soft. And the martial virtues are till revered in the military, at least in the infantry and in various Special Operations units.

But for the rest of us, it's gluttony and entertainment from the Coliseum, or its modern day equivalents.

Don't get me wrong: I'm glad I live in the US. If someone gives me inside information, I'd be tempted to take it, and I wouldn't want to be shot for that. I also prefer to breathe clean air. And it's nice to know that should I fall upon hard times, there will be some sort of social safety net for me.

Full disclosure: I also enjoy being self-indulgent. Writing this useless blog and practicing for masters swimming probably represent the height of self-indulgence.

I would have enjoyed being a late stage Roman circa 400 A.D. as well, what with all those feasts and orgies. And I would have hated to be a centurion back in 100 B.C., sleeping on the ground in faraway lands and wondering if I would survive the next battle with the Teutons or Gauls.

I wouldn't have even wanted to be one of the ones whose job it was to build those aqueducts. (Give me Nero's life instead.)

I'm also glad I live in a society which places such a premium on safety, as I prefer to live rather than die. I prefer to have the biggest threat to my safety come from a high cholesterol level brought on by too many parfaits rather than from invading Huns.

But I also recognize that I am living in the most coddled circumstances in history.

One of the biggest problems facing our country is that not all of the world's peoples are quite so self-indulgent. Many of the Muslim countries, for instance, are filled with people who will gladly give their lives for the chance to take a few of ours.

And that imbalance, typified not only by the Tsarnaev brothers, but also by Chinese willing to work eighty hours a week, is what may well prove our downfall.

Sorta like how it happened with Rome.

Ethnic cleansing in the land of Oz

2013-04-22T11:10:00.000-04:00

Last week I saw Oz the Great and Powerful. It had little of the charm of the original, and seemed to be aimed primarily at kids.

That aside, what I was really struck by were the racial dynamics of the casting. Roughly ten percent of the Munchkins and Tinkers were black, yet there was not a single Asian or Hispanic in sight. Hollywood is obviously uncomfortable excluding blacks, yet they seem to feel perfectly comfortable excluding Asians and Latinos. What gives?

Even worse, this movie was supposed to be a prequel to The Wizard of Oz. Yet by the time Dorothy landed in Oz, there was not a black to be seen. What had happened in the intervening years? Had the white Munchkins simply killed all of the black ones? They certainly showed no signs of their intentions in Oz the Great and Powerful, even going so far as to appoint a black man as chief tinker, a position requiring great mechanical ingenuity.

I would never have guessed that the Lollipop Kids were white supremacists, but it does appear that way. (Were the Scarecrow and the Tin Man guilty as well? Perhaps Oz himself played the role of Hitler.) Somebody should investigate.

Another interesting aspect of the movie was that all of the white residents of Oz looked like cornfed Anglos straight from the 1943 cast of Oklahoma! And the good witch was played by Michelle Williams, a blonde Anglo of part Norwegian descent:

Yet the wicked witches were played by Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis, both of whom are of Jewish descent:

Was there a message being conveyed there? Are the folks who run Hollywood really that anti-Semitic?

I must confess myself greatly confused.

Dzhokhar

2013-04-22T10:02:00.001-04:00

When I first read about the Tsarnaev brothers, I actually started to feel a tiny bit of sympathy for Dzhokhar, the younger one. It seemed pretty obvious that he had been led astray by the older one. The initial accounts of their life made it sound as if Dzhokhar had worshipped his older brother, Tamerlan. It sounded as if Dzhokhar, who studied hard and had friends, was the well adjusted one, and Tamerlan, who claimed he had not made a single friend in America, was the misfit.

Tamerlan had been a boxer, and had been known to beat up his girlfriend. (Having been named for one of the most bloodthirsty conquerors of all time, did he have any choice?) He had also reportedly become a more fervent Muslim than Dzhokhar.

Tamerlan even had a much more aggressive cast to his face, whereas Dzhokhar somehow looked more peaceful (though this may have been partly a function of their ages).

Then there was the fact that Dzhokhar was only 19 years old. (I would never have done what he did when I was 19, but neither would I want to be judged today on what I said and did at that age.)

But then I read that on Wednesday evening, two days after the bombing, Dzhokhar had partied with his fellow intramural soccer players at U Mass Dartmouth. By all reports he had seemed fine, and had acted normal. At one point he even described himself as "a stress-free kind of guy."

That ability to enjoy oneself after such an act smells of sociopathy: sociopaths actually do tend to be far more stress-free than the rest of us. If Dzhokhar had been pulled reluctantly into this crime by his brother, he would have been, at the very least, a little perturbed at the suffering he had caused. But he didn't seem to be: he just partied hearty.

I don't know enough to say whether he's a sociopath; maybe he's just a Muslim fanatic like his brother. But any shred of sympathy I had for him evaporated upon hearing about his partying.

It will be interesting to see what his interrogators can glean before Dzhokhar lawyers up.