Showing posts with label Psychiatry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychiatry. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 59th. Babble and Horse Theives.

Eh?

I wouldn’t protect him. He betrayed the queen. That’s unforgivable. He would be on his own if it was down to me.

Donald Trump to a reporter at CPAC.

Seriously, does anyone think that Trump is well? 

American immigration laws are a mess, to be sure, but what the crap was this about?

By the way, the British NHS publishes this as symptoms of fronto temporal dementia:

Many people with frontotemporal dementia develop a number of unusual behaviours they're not aware of.

These can include:

being insensitive or rude

acting impulsively or rashly 

loss of inhibitions

seeming subdued

losing interest in people and things

losing drive and motivation

inability to empathise with others, seeming cold and selfish

repetitive behaviours, such as humming, hand-rubbing and foot-tapping, or routines such as walking exactly the same route repetitively

a change in food preferences, such as suddenly liking sweet foods, and poor table manners

compulsive eating, alcohol drinking and/or smoking

neglecting personal hygiene

As the condition progresses, people with frontotemporal dementia may become socially isolated and withdrawn.

I'm not a mental health professional, but Trump isn't right. 

There's something oddly charming about this.

CASPER, Wyo. — Ronald Ostrom, 54, of Powell, Wyoming, was convicted on Dec. 8 by a federal jury on six felony charges.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office on Monday said Ostrom’s charges included two counts of making a false writing, two counts of making false statements, one count of concealing and retaining government property and one count of conversion of government property.

Ostrom is a retired U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officer. According to evidence presented at trial, and the jury’s verdict, when Ostrom retired he failed to return, and then kept for his own use and gain, a government-owned horse named “Reo.” Ostrom also lied on forms about two horses he returned in place of government-owned horses.

Theft is wrong, but stealing your service horse is oddly really Western, and somewhat charming.

I hope Reo is okay. 

Last prior edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 58th Edition.Counting Chickens

Tuesday, January 30, 2024

One more example of how Ronald Reagan made the United States worse.

I have a thread up about reassessing Reagan, whom conservatives worship (they also tend to worship Theodore Roosevelt, oddly, who was a radical liberal, but anyway).

I've never been particularly certain on my views on Reagan, as I've noted here before.  I am a conservative, but something about Reagan has made me long uncomfortable.  In part, it might frankly just be because he was an actor, and I find actors to be fake.  I never bought off on his persona, I guess.  

I've noted here several times that Ronald Reagan started the process that gave us Donald Trump.

The Guardian just ran an article on the psychology of our political times, starting off with this:

Many explanations are proposed for the continued rise of Donald Trump, and the steadfastness of his support, even as the outrages and criminal charges pile up. Some of these explanations are powerful. But there is one I have seen mentioned nowhere, which could, I believe, be the most important: Trump is king of the extrinsics.

Some psychologists believe our values tend to cluster around certain poles, described as “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”. People with a strong set of intrinsic values are inclined towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance. They tend to be open to challenge and change, interested in universal rights and equality, and protective of other people and the living world.

I'm not sure what I think of The Guardian either, which is a British left wing newspaper working hard to break into the US market.  But this article has some interesting points, starting with this generalization:

People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.

Interesting.  And:

Trump exemplifies extrinsic values. From the tower bearing his name in gold letters to his gross overstatements of his wealth; from his endless ranting about “winners” and “losers” to his reported habit of cheating at golf; from his extreme objectification of women, including his own daughter, to his obsession with the size of his hands; from his rejection of public service, human rights and environmental protection to his extreme dissatisfaction and fury, undiminished even when he was president of the United States, Trump, perhaps more than any other public figure in recent history, is a walking, talking monument to extrinsic values.

That is in part what has made the "left behinds" fanatic devotion to Trump so hard for me to grasp.  People declaring themselves average patriotic, Christian, middle class, Americans are fanatic in their devotion to somebody who expresses none of those values whatsoever.  This is so much the case, that extreme efforts have to be taken to project those onto Trump.

But here's where it gets really interesting: 

We are not born with our values. They are shaped by the cues and responses we receive from other people and the prevailing mores of our society. They are also moulded by the political environment we inhabit. If people live under a cruel and grasping political system, they tend to normalise and internalise it, absorbing its dominant claims and translating them into extrinsic values. This, in turn, permits an even crueller and more grasping political system to develop.

If, by contrast, people live in a country in which no one becomes destitute, in which social norms are characterised by kindness, empathy, community and freedom from want and fear, their values are likely to shift towards the intrinsic end. This process is known as policy feedback, or the “‘values ratchet”. The values ratchet operates at the societal and the individual level: a strong set of extrinsic values often develops as a result of insecurity and unfulfilled needs. These extrinsic values then generate further insecurity and unfulfilled needs.

I think there's a lot more that can be analyzed as to these statements, but at an elemental level, there's a large measure of truth to them.  Norwegians today are a kindly, non-threatening group.  That reflects a lot of things, but one of them is the Christianization of the country in the Middle Ages.  That took them from a brutal society where murdering your own children was accepted, to what we have today.

Continuing on with The Guardian

Ever since Ronald Reagan came to power, on a platform that ensured society became sharply divided into “winners” and “losers”, and ever more people, lacking public provision, were allowed to fall through the cracks, US politics has become fertile soil for extrinsic values. As Democratic presidents, following Reagan, embraced most of the principles of neoliberalism, the ratchet was scarcely reversed. The appeal to extrinsic values by the Democrats, Labour and other once-progressive parties is always self-defeating. Research shows that the further towards the extrinsic end of the spectrum people travel, the more likely they are to vote for a rightwing party.

That' is absolutely the case.

Most voters, and most conservatives alive today, don't recall the country before Reagan.  They don't even recall that George Bush, who urged a "kinder, gentler, conservatism" in the race he won for the Oval Office, ran against Reagan in the 1980 GOP contest.

Reagan had a charming smile and a personal "oh shucks" type of presentation.  He was running against a widely personally admired man, Jimmy Carter, whose policies had failed.  He was also running at a time at which the country was desperate on inflation, and trying to figure out what had happened in the 1960s, and how the Vietnam War had gone so wrong.  Hard hat Americans were losing their jobs to Japanese manufacturing. Southerners were grasping to figure out what had happened to the Old South.

It wasn't a really good time in the country.

From the election of 1912 all the way through the election of 1980, the county had been on a much different path. The three-way race of 1912 saw a Progressive (Roosevelt) dragging along a conservative (Taft) against another somewhat Progressive (Wilson).  Progressivism, which first really started to come into its own during Theodore Roosevelt's administration, was on the rise and in fact became ingrained in American politics.  The Harding, Coolidge and Hoover administrations really didn't change that, but the Franklin Roosevelt administration very much did, ramping it up enormously.  The setting on the dial that Roosevelt put the country on was only turned down a couple of notches post-war, and the difference between post-war Republican Administrations and Democratic ones was slight in regard to these issues for the most part, at least until Lyndon Johnson, who tried to set the dial back up.  Nixon may have set the dial back down, but by modern Republican standards, Richard Nixon was a liberal RINO.

Reagan started to pull the dial off the settings, much of it in a budget fashion.  The mentally disturbed were set out on the streets as state's lost funding from the Federal Government for them.  Support for education at the Federal level, a major feature of the World War Two/Cold War Federal governments, started to evaporate.

With this, a sort of fend for yourself individualism came in.  The promise is that everything would improve, and everyone's lives with it.  And because Reagan did tackle inflation, and he did face down the Soviet Union (which of course is more or less unrelated), things did improve.

But that's stopped.

The left deserves much of the blame as well, as it got goofy, frankly, and started to take on a universalism approach that doesn't appeal to hardly anyone, and which in fact is detrimental to the country.

But Reagan took us down a path that involved hating the government, and incorporated the disaffected into the party to be used, but not really supported.  Lots of people ended up being left behind.

There were signs.  His political career had been launched by his A Time For Choosing speech in favor of Barry Goldwater, who was in some ways an earlier version of the Anti Republican, Republican.  As Governor of California, he had been a proponent of tax cuts, and he cut the number of individuals in California's mental institutions.

But all that is forty years ago.  Hating the government has become institutionalized on the right, along with a belief that all those in government service are enemies of the people.  A Lord of the Flies type of view towards economics has been accepted.  The ignored are angry  An acceptance of politicians whose personal lives don't reflect their professed Christianity is now fully accepted, particularly by a public that claims to want to turn back the clock, but doesn't recall what the prior clock settings were.

Changing this requires an change on an existential level.  There's no reason to believe that any current Republican, save perhaps for Christie and Romeny, could affect the start of it.

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Witnessing a decline in mental status. Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

These aren't gaffs: 

Lex Anteinternet: The 2024 Election, Part XII. The March To Moscow:   January 20, 2024 

Donald Trump pretty clearly confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi in a New Hampshire campaign rally, claiming that Haley was in charge of all the "troops", meaning that she could have called on National Guardsmen to protect the capitol.

Haley wasn't in office at the time.

Haley in turn called on his mental fitness.

More people should be. Trump doesn't act like somebody who okay mentally.  He's old, and in the footage of the rally, he does not look well.

January 21, 2024

Trump, on the same day he confused Haley for Pelosi, made reference to having run against President Obama, which he never did.

These are major mental lapses, and now they're coming in quick succession.

The Obama one, we'd note, has occured before.  Trump has, openly, mentioned having run against Barack Obama.  His first race was against Hillary Clinton, which is the only reason that he was elected, and with a minority of the vote.

Trump lies constantly, but these aren't lies. This is misfiring in his brain, and it's happening frequently.  And these aren't the only instances.

Republican voters who are going for Trump, the nearly 50% of the GOP that isn't really traditionally Republican but something else, are going to simply turn a blind eye towards this.  Democrats won't, but that doesn't really matter, except perhaps to the extent they emphasize it, which they in fact should.

Right now, assuming that Trump doesn't experience a complete mental collapse before November, which I'd give a 40% chance, and assuming that Trump's health holds out until November, which I'd give a 40% chance, he's going to be elected the next President because of the Democrats wholly inept performance in this election, including their absolute refusal to address many of  the legitimate concerns that they've allowed to fester into right wing conspiracies, such as 1) how many immigrants can we really take in; 2) why does everyone have to have a "good job" in a cubicle, 3) why are we ignoring real biology and pretending it's a lifestyle choice.  The election at this point is basically over.

That would in turn mean we're about to elect a man into office who is clearly sliding into dementia.  Republicans in his inner circle better figure out right now how far they'll let him lose his mind before they declare him unfit for office.

And we better hope his VP choice is made to be somebody rational and not a syncophant.

Monday, January 1, 2024

2023. Annus horribilis and a Gift.

Jimi Hendrix playing Room Full of Mirrors

At least by some measures, New Years are supposed to be periods of introspection.  If so, the annual arrival of New Year’s this year certainly has been for me.

2023, by which I really mean the period from October 2022 to the present, has been the worst year of my life, and that’s saying something.

Probably only people who know me really well would know that I’ve had, at least by western world standards, a rough life to some degree.  My teenage years and early (20s) adulthood was overshadowed by the physical and accompanying mental decline of my mother, something that still hangs over me like a dark cloud in a lot of ways.  It certainly sprung me from being a child at age 12 to an adult at age 13 virtually overnight, and not in ways that were good really, but in ways you can’t ever get back.  My relationship with my mother really didn’t recover in some ways until she was near death, and it never recovered in some ways.  I’m still working on that, trying to understand that what happened to her wasn’t her fault, or anyone else’s.

Added to that, the death of my father at age 62 was an irreparable loss to me that I’ve also never recovered from and won’t be able to.  As I noted here the other day, being an only child meant that I didn’t have a sibling to help endure this loss with, and when he died the person then closest to me in the world died, leaving me with an obligation to my mother that was a very heavy burden under the circumstances.

In short, things haven’t been always a treat.

But then, are they for anyone?

It may in fact be the case that everyone’s life is rough, to at least varying extents.  Maybe its best if you don’t even recognize that fact.

Anyhow, in October, 2022, as I’ve noted here before, I had colon surgery, following a colonoscopy that revealed a polyp too big to be removed in that process.  I really waited well beyond the age at which you should have your first colonoscopy, which was inexcusable on my part.  Had I gone in earlier (a lesson for everyone who might read this), the surgery would never have been necessary.  Ultimately the polyp proved to be precancerous, and was “as close to cancer as it can be without being cancer”.

I was 59 years old when I went in for that and that’s the very first instance of surgery, other than I suppose oral surgery to have a broken molar and the nearby wisdom tooth, taken out.  What I didn’t really grasp, but should have even due to the oral surgery, is that I wasn’t going to bounce back right away.  I expected to.  I didn’t even really expect to be out of work for more than a couple of days, in spite of everything that everyone told me.

Well, I’ve never fully recovered from the surgery and I’m not going to, that’s clear by now.  I notice it mostly in the mornings.  I just can’t eat.  Things make me sick, no matter what they are, as a rule.  The onset of late in life lactose intolerance has made that even worse.  For decades what I ate for breakfast was cereal with milk.  I can’t really eat that anymore.

So be it, but what really surprised me was the onset of really deep fatigue.  I was simply worn out from the surgery and it lingered for months.  I was tired like I never had been before in my life.

To compound it, when the diagnostic films were done for the colon surgery, a MRI was done all the way up to my neck which revealed I had a sizable polyp on my thyroid. The same surgeon recommended that the thyroid come out and seemed to look at the question as to what to do as almost absurd.  I was so surprised, and so beat up from the first surgery, that I went to my regular doctor for a second opinion.  He referred me to an endocrinologist. That doctor had no qualms at all about what needed to be done.  It needed out, the risk of cancer was so high, I was informed, that it was almost certainly cancer.

Great.

I ended up having a partial thyroidectomy in Denver.  I was extremely hesitant about the whole thing.

Well, the polyp turned out to be benign, which overjoyed the medicos but made me feel like I'd done something I could have avoided. After surgery, I hoped to avoid medication (I've never had daily medications), but wasn't lucky there either.

Since the thyroid surgery, and particularly at first, on a lot of days I've just been in a fog and tired all the time. It’s a difficult thing to describe, as it’s a feeling that’s internal.  I don’t think anyone else noticed it at all, but plowing through my days, and that’s what it felt like, I just didn't feel right.  I complained a lot about it to my wife, but in retrospect now I realize that if you complain a lot about certain topics, it become routine and won’t be paid too much attention to, particularly if there are no external manifestations that are obvious.

There were in fact external manifestations, but they weren’t obvious to anyone but me.  Normally, I look forward to the weekends and feel disappointed if I have to work on Saturdays, which I often must do.  I was so tired and dragged down, however, that I actually started to look forward to having to be in my office on Saturday.  I’d drag myself out, a little, to go fishing and hunting, but my feet felt leaden and I just wasn’t having the fun I normally did, the exception being when my kids were here.

I just went in for a follow-up and upon examination just recently. At that time the doctor asked me how I was doing and I reported what I was feeling and experiencing.  He gave me a physical examination.  I didn’t have bloodwork yet, as doing this on December 26 meant that I didn’t have the chance to get it done.  Based on the physical examination, they determined they needed to up my meds. “Everything will be fine”, I was told.

The bloodwork came back and showed everything to be just what it should be.  They immediately cancelled the doubling of the meds.

Long story short, what’s going on is post-surgery depression, a thing I didn't know even existed.

This is, apparently, particularly associated with thyroid surgeries, although most people don’t experience it. To just sort of note what’s out there, here’s a medical journal report on it:

Thyroid surgery is usually recommended for thyroid cancer and can be to remove one lobe of the thyroid (partial thyroidectomy) or to remove the entire thyroid (total thyroidectomy). Thyroidectomy may also be recommended for certain non-cancerous disorders including hyperthyroidism and large goiters. The results of a total thyroidectomy is hypothyroidism which requires lifelong treatment with a thyroid hormone pill. Several recent reports have highlighted a decrease in the quality of life and an increase in depression in some patients with hypothyroidism due to thyroid surgery. Therefore, the authors have examined if there is an association between thyroid surgery and a new onset of depression.

Great.

Apparently post-surgery depression is a thing with older adults anyhow, and I’m 60.  But to make it even niftier, depression is even more associated with colon surgery.  Another medical journal notes

The prevalence of anxiety, depression and PTSD appears to be high in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery. Younger patients and women are particularly at risk.

I don’t know the cause of all of this, and there could be a bunch of them that occur to me, some of which actually wouldn’t explain it in my case.  But being honest with myself, one of the things has to do with a family history and my early life.

Anxiety of a type is a condition which occurs on my mother’s side of my family.  Not everyone has it by any means, but some do and at least in one case, my maternal grandfather, it was really noticeable.  He was by all accounts an extremely intelligent man, but as a young man he suffered enormously from anxiety which kept him from building a career at an age, in that era in particular, a person normally did, and which in turn kept him from marrying at an age when people normally did.  My grandmother was his fiancé forever, and its actually a bit surprising that she waited for him, but then she had her own background haunting her, that being that she was highly educated and intelligent, but her own mother was not particularly fond of her, and was open about it.

Ultimately my grandfather found a career in real estate in Montreal, and did well until the Great Depression. When the Great Depression hit, and funds trailed off, he turned to drink, something that plagued him for years.  Remarkably, probably in the late 40s or early 50s, a Catholic Priest apparently told him to stop drinking and he did then and there, cold turkey.  Even more remarkably, my Grandmother suffered a miscarriage with what would have been her eighth child and went to a Priest, maybe the same one, and asked if she could stop performing the Marital Debt.  He said she could. That means that my grandfather, for the last ten or more years of his life, didn’t drink anymore, which is where he had taken refuge from stress, and also lived in a sexless marriage, which must have added enormously to his stress.  Amazingly, he seems to have actually pulled his act together, and lived out the balance of his life as a happy guy before dying at age 58.  His siblings, however, never got to where they trusted him and that ended up being taken out, after his death, on his widow and surviving children.

That’s an extreme example, of course, but there are a couple of others.  Something afflicted my mother, but nobody has a clue as to what it was.  She recovered from a condition pronounced to be terminal, and therefore the early diagnosis was either wrong, or her recovery was miraculous (which is what I think it was).  Her recovery, while real, was never complete, however.  As another example, one of my cousins on this side of the family, named after my mother, and one year older than me, was so conscious of anxiety being a factor in her makeup, she purposely chose a scientific lab career in order to avoid it.  In her early 60s, the impacts of this have not hit her, but she’s dying of cancer presently.

I know now that anxiety has impacted me my entire adult live, although largely unacknowledged by me.  I don’t recall it being a factor at all until I was an adult, but the trauma of what I went through as a teen probably didn't help, long term.  The first time I really experienced it was when I worried about going to basic training, but I got over it quickly when I was there.  After that, it became clear to me that I experienced travel anxiety, which is a condition that is something that uniquely occurs in some people.  It’s hard to explain.  Ironically, I've traveled in my adult life a huge amount, and generally like where I'm going, once I'm there.

It’s when I became a litigator that I really became conscious of anxiety, however.

Litigation is an extremely stressful career as it is.  Anxiety runs rampant in the field.  According to the ABA, for lawyers in general, a study revealed:

64 percent of lawyers report having anxiety.

28 percent lawyers suffered from depression

19 percent of lawyers had severe anxiety

11.4 percent of lawyers had suicidal thoughts in the previous year

And that’s just regular lawyers.

There have been study after study on this topic, and they all come about the same, with some coming out much worse.  I’ve seen one article that has dissed these findings, but just one.  My guess is that probably double these figures (except for the self reporting anxiety, which would amount to a statistical impossibility) would be the case for litigators.

Indeed, I’ve long noted that most litigators actually won’t try a case.  I have tried a lot of cases, and one of the reasons why is that I’ve always been conscious of the duty not to allow a person’s anxiety to keep them from dutifully fulfilling their duty to their client.  I”ve sometimes worried, in fact, that I might possibly try more cases than others in order to counter the fact that anxiety might be infusing my views, but I don't think that's the case.  Anyhow, anxiety in litigation is so bad, as noted, that a majority of litigators actually won’t try a case.  I've always just been aware that it was there, can impact how you think, and set it aside.

In other contexts, I’ve long seen the impact of anxiety working itself out in destructive ways in the legal field.  I’ve known lawyers who were drug addicts or alcoholics, or who engaged in other destructive life choices.  I’ve known two who quit practicing due to anxiety, one self-declaring that and the other just not being able to overcome an addiction to alcohol otherwise.  One really well respected plaintiff’s lawyer actually disappeared from his household and family for a couple of weeks until he was found in a hotel in another state where he’d gone on a profound days long bender.  Three I’ve been aware of just disappeared, two resurfacing in a seminary and one in the People’s Republic of China.

This all being the case, while I’ve been a successful lawyer, law probably wasn’t a field that I should have gone into.  One lawyer friend of mine from Germany, whom I remarked to on this, dismissed this, saying “you are an intellectual, your choice was to become a lawyer or a priest”, which is an interesting way of looking at it, but had I been smarter, I’d probably have chosen the path of my scientific cousin in order to avoid the stress.

It doesn't matter now.  Like the Hyman Roth character in Godfather II, "This is the business we've chosen".  And by and large, it worked out well.  Being honest with myself, I've been able to do a lot of interesting things, and have constantly learned new fields and topics, all the time.  If you are an autodidatic polymath, it's hard to imagine a field that would actually offer so much as the law.  And if you do like visiting obscure places, at least prior to COVID, it really allowed you to.

In saying all of this, what I’m saying now is that looking back on the past horrible year, I can look back decades and see the points at which the stress rose up and made me act in ways I never would have, although never in a professional sense. Each time, really, was a cry for help, but cries for help don’t really come through that way if they’re not posed that way. And sometimes, there is no existential help, you just need to pick up your pack and carry on.

This past year, however, with the fog of post-surgery depression setting in, I was really unaware of it.

I should have been, as I didn’t mentally feel right.  I did keep mentioning that “I feel slow”, but that means you feel slow.  The real warning was when I absolutely exploded on two partners who have been keeping a long running irritating argument going for years, permanently ending it.  It needed to end, but blowing up on them was the wrong thing to do, and in retrospect I’m amazed that I wasn’t told to take a hike.

In Catholic theology there’s something called “the problem of evil”, which boils down to “why does God allow bad things to happen”. There are various answers to that question, but a universal partial response is that God doesn’t allow something to occur if he cannot bring good out of it.  In our temporary lives that can be awfully hard to accept, but I believe it to be true.  In this instance, I can now in fact see this at work.  In a way, this allows me to go back, but clear minded, to the beginning of my career as I now approach its end, but to be a kinder, more thoughtful person, and a more grateful one.  I do believe that people can and do change if they wish to, and while it’s not as if I’m now going to become an Iron Man competitor, or something, I am in a way following a bit of the same path taken by a friend who was very bitter about his legal career, and openly so, but in the last few years has become very grateful for it.  I have a lot to be thankful for.

I also have the chance now to beat anxiety that was lurking there, rather than to sort of give into PTSD, which is basically what I have had in a way.  That condition, known as combat fatigue originally, or shell shock, has been determined to be much wider than originally thought, and the frequent comparisons of litigation to combat are pretty accurate.  But knowing what’s what is frankly more than half the battle.

Part of that also I think is following a bit of what Alcoholics Anonymous and other addition programs have in their “twelve steps”.  I’m not saying I need to join AA or NA, or something but rather the page AA took from the advice of a Catholic Priest, which is similar to what Jews do on Yom Kippur, is to apologize to people you’ve hurt.  I’ve done that with four people already, which is probably the set I needed to.  But beyond that, part of it is being more tolerant to the people and conditions we routinely encounter, something that is difficult in a judgmental profession like the law.  

So, in the end, I’m grateful to have an outside professional let me know what was going on, and that its connection to surgery, twice will remediate, and indeed already are.  But beyond that, I’m grateful for the door it opened and which I’m walking through to be more aware.

Pax vorbiscum.

Sunday, December 10, 2023

Trump and state of mind. Whistling past the graveyard.

From the blog Above The Law:

Good Morning, Joe Tacopina!

Time for a little client feedback. Don’t bother checking Avvo or Yelp — he’ll come to you.

This disgusting Slob, a Democrat Political Operative, is the same guy who funded a woman who I knew absolutely nothing about, sued me for Rape, for which I was found NOT GUILTY. She didn’t remember the year, decade, or much else! In Interviews she said some amazingly “inconsistent” things. Disgraceful Trial—Very unfair. I was asked by my lawyer not to attend—“It was beneath me, and they have no case.” That was not good advice.

For those who don’t speak brain-addled former president …

The “slob” bit is a reference to Reid Hoffman, the billionaire founder of LinkedIn who paid some of the fees associated with E. Jean Carroll’s defamation and sexual abuse lawsuits against Donald Trump. He did not “fund” Carroll, whose lawyers were working on contingency and who filed her lawsuit ten months before Hoffman’s intercession.

And there's more, you can find the link at the side.

I didn't post it for Trump's post trial criticism of his own lawyer, but for this item:

For those who don’t speak brain-addled former president …

Isn't it obvious that Trump is not all right?

You would think so, but for some reason people just don't seem to be picking up on it.

When Ronald Reagan was President, people were picking up on it.  I won't call it a whisper campaign, but amongst careful observers and medicos, there was talk.  I remember, as I've noted here before, my father just flat out stating that Reagan had Alzheimer's, and he did.

Something is going on with Trump.

Trump has for many years affected a very odd pattern of speech, but it's gotten juvenile,  This isn't the way a highly educated man speaks.  It's weird.  And the example above is far from the oddest example.

The other day I stopped by a pastry store on my way to work.  On my way out a man was walking in, with glassy eyes, and was all upset about where I had parked my Jeep.  "You're in the road".  

Now, he was walking in, and there were no parking spots marked.  There was no reason to believe I was "in the road".  But he was waiving his arms and talking to himself, before he saw the Jeep was mine, and talked to me.  "I'm sorry" I stated, and he rambled on about that being okay, still speaking to himself as he walked in.

Clearly, he had a mental problem.

Also, just yesterday I walked into Home Depot and a man was loudly complaining to himself in a rambling babbling fashion about the automatic doors being open.  "The automatic doors are open" he stated to me, in an agitated fashion.  I walked on in and said nothing as I thought he might have those ear buds that people now have where they can talk on their cell phones and perhaps was an employee talking to somebody, but pretty clear it was obvious he was not as he kept up in an agitated fashion and ultimately went up and babbled to the help desk, loudly.

It was clear he had a mental problem.

Why are we whistling past the graveyard with Trump?

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

How not to be helpful.


I hesitate to post this, and probably shouldn't.  I'm not a counselor of anything other than "the law" and I always think lawyers who use that term in their letterheads are being pretentious.  Having said that, the only thing lawyers really do is deal with people's problems, sometimes by creating problems for other people, so we do know something about it.

I've been in litigation for decades, and I think what that's taught me is that fighting sucks.  People who like to fight, including lawyers who like that, also suck.  Most people, including most lawyers, don't fit in that category, however.

Anyhow, with that caveat, I'm going to just put out some observational comments on how not to help people, and by that I mean people who are seeking our help as they have a close relationship.  Some people deserve help, some don't, and a lot deserve a lot better help than that they get.

Before I get into that, however, the first thing I'd note is that if you've sought help from a whole bunch of people, and they all give you the same advice, maybe you are the problem.  I've seen people who are flat out wrong with a legal problem ask a whole series of professionals, and then go down to their dog and cat, and get the same advance and be upset. They don't want real help, they want verification that their wacky view or bad plan is right.  Sometimes they want verification for going after somebody they shouldn't.

Don't be that person.

Well, in offering advice, here goes.

1.  Ridden like a rented mule.

Years ago, I had a friend who started off in the same line of work I did, but who temperamentally wasn't very suited for it.  He'd married right out of law school, and he and his wife had a couple of children pretty quickly.

At some point, he began to burn out pretty badly.  It was obvious.  But his wife had achieved a status that she'd always hoped for in the process.  Indeed, frankly, we'd been friend with both of them when they started out, but because he became quite financially successful, briefly, she reached the point of viewing us as being of inferior status and quit associating with us.  He didn't. 

Anyhow, you could see what was coming.  He was having trouble, then a close friend of his died and it was life altering.  He wanted out.  Financially, he started declining.

I don't know what the conversations between the two of them were, but I have a suspicion.  It was probably "you'll get over it" which amounted to "get back to work and stop complaining".

Well, ultimately he took up going to the gym a lot, she took up eating a lot, he met a woman at the gym. . . fill in blanks here.  The couple split.

Now, I’m a Catholic and I don't advocate for divorce, and I'm not justifying what happened here, but the "shut up and plow on" response is really common from spouse to spouse.  I've seen it from female to male and male to female.  Men work themselves to deaths as their wives can't conceive of them doing anything else or simply won't allow them to.

Death may be the mildest of results here, actually.  The failing party gets the blame, but often they were pushed into it.  If somebody is saying "I can't go on", they probably really can't go on, and they need the other person's help.

Indeed, to add to this, I've witnessed the odd phenomenon of a spouse who was there for all of her friends and her siblings, but nearly totally unsympathetic to her husband under the situation described above, and not even all that sympathetic to at least one of her children's problems.  There as well, the husband was sending out pretty clear signals that he was worn out beyond repair.  He started to get sick, and the wife didn't even really react much to that.  Eventually he had a bad fatigue related accident.  The "I told you I needed help" wasn't well received.

2. Looking for a solution.

Closely related to this is this one, and this is a male/female thing.

More particularly, this is a male/female couple thing.

Something about the psychological makeup of women causes them to present problems to their spouses, boyfriends, and close friends that they don't want solved.  This is so common that there are some well known jokes about it.  Men don't work this way, usually.  Actually women don't either, with men they know in a professional sense, even if they become friends with them, but then often coworker problem discussions are also of the "venting" nature.

If a man just wants to vent about a problem, but not have it solved, he'll just relate the problem to a stranger or somebody he barely knows, hence the classic stories about bartenders.  When he tells a friend, however, or a spouse, he's looking for a solution.

Probably due to simple familiarity, the longer a couple has been together, the more likely a real solution is just going to be brushed off.  

I've read lots of stories in legal journals about successful lawyers who entered some sort of deep crisis and then something horrible happened.  Often a spouse is interviewed and gives a "there were no signs" teary comment.

Maybe, but I'll bet more often than not there were.  Probably Joe Big Law had gone to his wife repeatedly with "look, honey, I need to do something here as I can't keep on like this", and the reply was "oh, you'll feel better. . . " at best.  He didn't.  Wife is distraught.

Well, she wasn't much help, quite often.

Offering no solution isn't being helpful. Flat out stating there's no solution definitely isn't helpful.

This also applies, however, to a lot of professional colleague advice.

A running story in the television series M*A*S*H was that, at the end of the day, the object of a field hospital was to get you patched up, and back into combat.  That's pretty much the way professional assistance programs work as well. They're going to address your problems and get you back into the game.

Maybe the game is the problem.

3.  It's all about me.

I've seen this repeatedly.

Somebody has a real problem, they go to their spouse or close friend, and that person quickly turns it into a discussion about their own, probably trivial problem.  It works like this.  "Honey, I've been shot, and I'm bleeding out", to which is replied, "Oh I know just what that's like, I stubbed my toe on a piece of furniture at work the other day, why I had told the janitor a thousand times that that needed to be moved, and I hate that furniture, it's Ikea and ".

No help at all.

I've actually had couples come with a legal problem where I have to shut one of them up as that person won't let the other talk about the problem.  "The semi tractor exploded and. . . . " followed by sudden interruption and; "Bob is always so dramatic, it wasn't a big explosion, why just the other day I was at Walmart looking at the low, low prices and Mrs. Sepansky cut in front of me at the notion's isle, well I said to her. . . "

4.  Lacking empathy

Most people are at least somewhat empathetic to others, but not all.  Some simply lack it entirely.

There's been some studies that suggest this is genetic, but I somewhat doubt that.  If it fully were, the genetic driver would be towards empathy.  Indeed, an opposite speculation on this is that the world became more empathetic with the spread of Christianity, as Christians survived crises because of their empathy towards others, and others empathy towards them.

My guess is that this is a more developmental thing. Something's gone wrong.  And I suspect that lacking empathy is something stepped into.  Otherwise, quite frankly, the anti empathy genes would be weeded out, as people who lack empathy are hard to be around, while those who show it are sought out.

None of which takes away from the fact that some people just lack empathy.

In the excellent podcast Catholic Stuff You Should Know Fr. Michael O'Loughlin once observed that he'd remarked to a friend that he had his spouse to go to for sympathy. The friend laughed.  He couldn't go to his spouse for sympathy.  I suspect that's a lot more common than people suspect, and has a lot to do with the first item noted here.  It's not so much that familiarity breeds contempt as the people have assumed certain roles at some time, and there's a lack of sympathy for not fully measuring up to them.

An aspect of this, I'd note, is that some people are so lacking in empathy towards somebody seeking help from them that the asker just stops.  Indeed, the person lacking empathy not only lacks it, but is resentful about being asked for help. That actually punishes the person who needs the help.

That can really have a lasting negative impact.  At best, the asker just learns that asking is pointless.  But if the people are in a close relationship, that insertion of distance is corrosive.  A person asking somebody they love for help, and not receiving any, and even getting dissed for it, will struggle with disappointment at a bare minimum, and that disappointment can turn to hate.

You see that all the time with married couples who once obviously loved each other, but their love turned to hate. There's a lot of things that can cause that, but one is a person seeking help and receiving instead rejection.  The same comes up in parent child relationships.  Children seek out legitimate help, but don't get it, learning that they apparently really weren't that important in the first place.

5. The wrong help.

Some seeking help seem to get it, but the help they get isn't real.  Instead they receive validation, things akin to offering an alcoholic a drink.

This plays out widely in our modern society where some behaviors clearly recognized at one time as mental illnesses are now celebrated instead.  People are asking for help in their actions, but instead are simply being told they're okay.

It's easy to undestand this, as its easy.  Tough to give help is hard to receive help, and this tends to involve that.

6. The blender

Finally, I'd note, that a lot of these things get all blended together.

A person seeks help from the person who is supposed to be the closest person to them in the world, only to find that person has acclimated themselves to the role the help seeker occupies and doesn't want it changed.  At the same time, the person sought out is providing help to family and friends at an epic charitable level.  Back at home, however, it's "all about me".

Maybe that offers a clue to all of this.  

7.  The Wreck


8  Final thoughts.

I'll go back to what I noted at the start.  You read all the time, or hear it directly, that after something horrible happens "he showed no signs".  Often its from a close family member, probably a spouse.  A big law partner takes his own life, a busy business person drinks too much, too often, and dies young, a beloved mother falls apart, a desperate "transgendered" person ends their own life.

There were no signs.

Oh, sure there were.  People simply chose to ignore them.

Saturday, September 2, 2023

On toleration.

We posted this the other day:
Lex Anteinternet: A Sorority (Fraternity) lawsuit, and a subject who...: Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to sa...

In it, we noted this:

But in our political purity of the age, we're not doing that.  And that's destructive for the people making the declaration, who could have been helped.

We might, before concluding, stop to ask two questions. Does it really matter, would be the first.

After all, if somebody wants to drink themselves into oblivion, does it matter, if that's their choice?  Or more particularly, if somebody wants to present as a woman, who is a man, what does it really matter to me or anyone else?

Well, it does matter if your view of humanity is that we are our brother's keeper.  Oddly enough, in our contemporary world, it's the political left that claims that we are, while the political right, as exhibited by Jeanette Ward in a common in the last legislative session, feels we are not.  But most decent societies, and all Christian societies, feel that we are.

So there's a duty to the individual to help them live an ordered life. We know that living a disordered one leads to unhappiness.

There's a wider duty, however, to society.  Assaults on individual natures are assaults on nature in general, are destructive to us all.

And, additionally, telling a lie to yourself is one thing. But demanding, even with the force of law, that everyone else adopt the lie is quite another. That's completely destructive to the social structure, as enshrining lies as part of them inevitably leads to decay.

And finally, and more particularly, it's damaging to women in the extreme. Real women, that is.  Women know that they aren't men.  We all know that the biological life of a woman is radically different from a man's in nearly every sense.  Psychologically, it isn't the same either.  Reducing womanhood to appearing to have boobs is the most Hefnereque position of all, and an insult to women in every fashion.

After posting it, an irony occured to us that is another reason the entire transgender fantasy, as society approaches the topic, does damage to society.

It's extremely logically inconsistent.

A consistent drum beat in this are by the progressive left is that "tolerance" and "acceptance" are all that's required here, and that this all is a straight line from earlier civil rights movements, with the most common analogy being it's a straight line to "transgender rights' from 1) civil rights for blacks, or 2) civil rights for women, or 3) civil rights for homosexuals.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as none of those other movements requires suppressing reality and acceptance of self definition.

The civil rights movement that brought political and societal rights on par, almost, with whites in the US very much demonstrates this.  The oppressed class were African Americans, or as Martin Luther King would state at the time, "Negroes".  Skin color is actually a secondary feature of our appearance and an evolutionary adaption to intense sunlight, which means that the entire concept of "race", as we've noted before, is a patently false one. Race really doesn't exist, but ethnicity and culture do, and nobody could rationally argue that African Americans in general have a culture in the country which reflects their long presence in it, and the origin of that presence being rooted in the crime of slavery.

But here's the thing.  You don't sense your self to be black.  Your ancestry either goes back to Africans or it doesn't.  Under the "one drop of blood" silliness of American culture, you are an African American if you are of mixed ancestry, and almost all African Americans are (lots of "white" Southerners are as well), which is a social construct, but it's one based on a reality. Somewhere, and for the rule to apply somewhere relatively recently, you had an African ancestor.

If you don't, and you claim you feel your self black, you will be justifiably socially derided.  And that's because you really haven't endured what African Americans do on a daily basis, and growing up.  

In other words, if you run around claiming to be black, and aren't, you are going to be despised by everybody as a fake.  Indeed, the proposition is so absurd, it was used as a running joke in the movie The Jerk, with Steve Martin, whose obviously not black, giving the lines "I was born a poor black child" in the opening scenes of the movie.  More seriously, Jessica Krug, a professor at George Washington University who claimed to be black, had to resign when it was revealed she wasn't.  In fact, over time, Krug to be an Algerian American, a German American, and an Afro Boricua, when in fact she was a white American of Jewish ancestry.

Nobody tried to justify this on the basis that she "self identified" as black.

And nobody demands that you accept her claim, as she feels herself to be black.

Let's turn, then, to homosexuality.

Whatever a person feels the origins of male or female same gender attraction to be, it is.  That is, nobody really doubts that there are men sexually attracted to men, or women sexually attracted to women. The question may be why, and what that means, but people aren't faced with claims of "I feel myself to be attracted to the same gender".  We know that occurs.  That doesn't actually change the fundamental nature of a person's genetically determined gender, however.  Homosexual men are men.  There's also no doubt about that, and in some odd way, that's the point.  The same is true with homosexual women. They may be attracted to other women, but that doesn't mean they aren't women, they are.  Therefore, when a person reveals themselves, or is revealed by others, to be homosexual, it isn't as if you have to accept that their morphology and nature is different.  It just all remains the same.

Transgender claims, however, are radically different, in that the man claims he's a woman, or vice versa, just like a white person claiming they're black. And that not only doesn't have to be accepted, it can't be.

Indeed, hearkening back to that example, if a white person deeply and sincerely asserted that they were black, when they weren't, it not only would be pointed out, but if it persisted, at a bare minimum the person would be regarded as odd.  For most people, it probably wouldn't be so odd that it would be socially destructive (in some cases it could be), but it would definitely be odd.  But pretending you are a woman, if you are not, is destructive by its very nature.

We've already pointed out why, but the physical and psychological natures of women are radically different, which is the main reason.  It's also, however, deeply offensive to the nature of women, and reduces them to mere attributes, which is insulting in the extreme.

Finally, there's a certain intolerant insistence on tolerance here.  Toleration really means that I put with your nature, no matter what I think of it.  We do that in order to make society work.  For some things it should be obvious that it isn't really toleration that is required, but acceptance, ethnicity being one, but for many things that's not the case.  In American society, for example, there are many religious groups and all should be tolerated, but that doesn't mean in any way shape or form individual acceptance is required.  A person is free and should be free to disagree with the tenants of a religion, and even vehemently disagree with them.

That's toleration.

Toleration here, however, means accepting a person's self definition, no matter how deluded.  We ask that of nothing else.  

Put another way, we don't demand that Christians accept that Mohammed was a prophet, and we don't demand that Muslims accept Christ as the Son of God and part of the Trinitarian God.  We don't demand that blacks accept Jessica Krug as black.  We shouldn't demand that people accept men as women.

Toleration would really mean that if you see a man in a dress, you don't harrass the perseon about it.  It doesn't mean you have to pretend the man is a woman.

Thursday, August 31, 2023

A Sorority (Fraternity) lawsuit, and a subject who could be helped.

Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to say that I must not discuss it.

G. K. Chesterton.

The Gibson Girl, the iconic female figure of the early 1900s created by Charles Dana Gibson. The thing is, you see, she isn't, and wasn't, real.

There's been a story much in the news here, and indeed elsewhere, about a figure who is a guy but who claims he identifies as a girl, or more accurately, a figure who is a man who claims he identified as a woman.

What impresses me about this story isn't that aspect of it, so much as nobody, up until very recently, and after I started this post, has really bothered to dive very deep into the story, particularly from a psychological level.

It seems that they should.

Not that we should be too surprised about this. People rarely do.  During World War Two, for example, in one rural area of Germany a figure held forth as a local open anti-Nazi member of the German nobility. . . except he wasn't a member of the nobility at all.  He was lucky to get away with it, and his anti-Nazi stance was genuine.  But a Junker he was not.  Why did he do that?

Backstories to the public positions people take are very rarely looked at, but really should be.  Some backers of causes that are strongly for them in a virulent way have a personal connection that undermines their position in one fashion or another.  Others just make you wonder.  Why, for instance, would a well-to-do young man with no employment history relocate to a Western state and run for office as a political firebrand on the populist libertarian front?  You'd think voters would ask, but they largely don't.  Why would an ostensible billionaire who has gone down in defeat in an election and who faces a pile of criminal charges be running so aggressively for office again?

We tend to take things at face value.

So too here.

There's some new data out that shows that for the majority of people who claim transgenderism, if left to develop that claim on their own, the claim itself is transitory and youthful.  Most girls, for example, who in their very early teens feel they want to be boys, don't a decade latter.  That's a good reason in and of itself not to allow "transitions" that can't be reversed, and any substantial one can't be reversed.  Indeed, it's criminal to allow it in an existential sense, and ought to be in a legal sense.  But what causes it?

Indeed, as a commentor on the story in Wyo File, which finally did look at some of the backstory, noted:

The strong correlation between trans identity and autism spectrum disorder has been recognized over the last three years by such professional organizations as the National Autism Society, The Institutes of Health, Autism Research Institute, and studies published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Noted was the observation that autistic youths were up to 6 times more likely to identify as trans than a similar non-autistic demographic. The medical field recognizes and treats autism as a disorder, not a normal expression of the spectrum of the human condition. Since it appears that trans gender identity is resultant from ASD, it should also be treated as a disorder rather than celebrated.

That's an interesting observation, to say the least.

Well, we've looked at it before, but in regard to the individual who has been so much in the news, why hasn't anyone looked up until now?

The data is there, or at least was, when this story first developed.  It doesn't appear to be a happy story.

When this news first broke, there was a blog up, and maybe there still is, by the father.  It wasn't on his sons, but his son appeared in the photos.  He already looked different from the rest, having gained a lot of weight even as a child.  But what the blog made clear is that the father was bitterly disillusioned.

Not with the son, but with his former wife.

His wife, he claimed, had left and divorced him, and her Mormon faith was the reason why.

Now, that was never explained.  Mormon's can and do marry outside of their faiths, so there are a lot of roads that could be gone down there. Whatever the story was, from his prospective, the wife had left him and their children for her Mormonism.

Now, that doesn't really make sense.  One of the things most noted about Mormon's is their deep devotion to the children.  It's hard to imagine what the conflict was, but it was at least perceived that way by the former father.

Maybe the topic of the young man had already come up, and now based on the Wyo File story, it seems it definitely had.  Perhaps that was the division.  Or not.  Maybe that had nothing to do with the split.  Again, we don't really know.

I don't really know the definitive Mormon position on transgenderism.  I do know the Catholic one which is that disorders are not sinful, but acting upon them if it's outside of the moral framework, is.  This has typically come up in regard to homosexuality. Being a homosexual isn't sinful, but sex outside of marriage is, and marriage is just between a man and a woman.  I believe the Mormon position is similar, but I can't say that definitively.  If the boy's declared sexual dysmorphia became an issue in the household, with one parent taking the boy's side, and one not (and I don't know if that was the case), I can see where it may ultimately have been fatal to the marriage.

What we do know, and from long, long experience, is that its difficult in the extreme to raise a child in a one parent household and that this is so much the case that when one parent is present but really absent, such as one works all the time, or one is a drug or alcohol addict, it statistically impacts the outlook of the children and often for life.

Daughters, it's been shown, of a checked out woman are much more likely to turn out to be lesbians than daughters where the mother is present. That doesn't mean their relationship is necessarily rosy. But the daughters of what now is so charmingly called "the day drinking moms" who sit there in front of the television at 1:30 in the afternoon getting blotto tend to have no real female role model.*  In contrast, a mother may be a Tiger Mom, or whatever, but if she's there, it makes a huge difference.

In contrast, the son's of men who are not there tend to be more likely to have same sex attraction as well.  The two impulses, one in male and one in females, are not otherwise similar and other aspects go into it. Women who perceive, while young, that men are a threat are more likely to take refuge with other women.  What about men?

Well, I don't know, but one thing that has been pretty clearly demonstrated is that young men who are exclusively around other young men, to the exclusion of females, are more likely to become homosexuals.  English Boy Schools provide a well known example.  

What about transgenderism?

One thing we do know, in spite of recent left wing attempts to scientifically legitimize it, much like was formerly done with eugenics, it has no biological origin.  No set of hormones or the like is going to send you off into a different gender. That means it's purely psychological in origin.

But what's going on with it?

We don't know for sure, but we do know that with females it mostly hits in the very early teens and is gone by the early 20s.  And we also know that young women are getting exposed to piles of gross pornography right now, and that those who are ADHD are more likely to take this direction.  Often it occurs in groups.

Which may mean that its origin is much like lesbianism, except its much more destructive, but also much more transitory.  Girls are seeking refuge outside of their sex as they fear the roles that their sex seems to have.  Once it starts to clear up that the life of adult women isn't something featured on Pornhub, it wanes.

And men?

Well, it would appear autism is an element of it, as the subject is apparently on the spectrum.  That's telling.

It would also appear that early on, he received "support" from elements after he started to reveal his claimed orientation.  For one thing, his school had a "SPEAK" club, standing for Genders and Sexualities Alliance, of which he was a member.**

That's telling not because he was a member, but because it's well known that recruitment of people to anything, particularly anything destructive, tends to take root if done very young. There's a reason that the Nazi Party in Germany eliminated youth organizations and replaced them with the Hitler Youth, or why the Soviet Communist Party had the Young Pioneers.  There's also a reason, although people now turn a blind eye to it, that homosexual men used to fairly notably recruit teenage men.  If you start to dive into debasement, it's really hard to get back out.

Young pioneers... for the struggle in the name of Lenin and Stalin... be prepared! (1951)

So what else is over all going on here?

I don't know, but I suspect that a certain element of refuge, or indeed a large role of refuge, from the male role is at work here as well, in the overall story of transgenderism.  In spite of a protracted effort to undermine it, male roles basically remain unchanged.

We tend, mentally, to still think of the Four things greater than all things are.

When spring-time flushes the desert grass,

Our kafilas wind through the Khyber Pass.

Lean are the camels but fat the frails,

Light are the purses but heavy the bales,

As the snowbound trade of the North comes down

To the market-square of Peshawur town.

 

In a turquoise twilight, crisp and chill,

A kafila camped at the foot of the hill.

Then blue smoke-haze of the cooking rose,

And tent-peg answered to  hammer-nose;

And the picketed ponies, shag and wild,

Strained at their ropes as the feed was piled;

And the bubbling camels beside the load

Sprawled for a furlong adown the road;

And the Persian pussy-cats, brought for sale,

Spat at the dogs from the camel-bale;

And the tribesmen bellowed to hasten the food;

And the camp-fires twinkled by Fort Jumrood;

And there fled on the wings of the gathering dusk

A savour of camels and carpets and musk,

A murmur of voices, a reek of smoke,

To tell us the trade of the Khyber woke.

 

The lid of the flesh-pot chattered high,

The knives were whetted and -- then came I

To Mahbub Ali, the muleteer,

Patching his bridles and counting his gear,

Crammed with the gossip of half a year.

But Mahbub Ali the kindly said,

"Better is speech when the belly is fed."

So we plunged the hand to the mid-wrist deep

In a cinnamon stew of the fat-tailed sheep,

And he who never hath tasted the food,

By Allah! he knoweth not bad from good.

 

We cleansed our beards of the mutton-grease,

We lay on the mats and were filled with peace,

And the talk slid north, and the talk slid south,

With the sliding puffs from the hookah-mouth.

Four things greater than all things are, --

Women and Horses and Power and War.

We spake of them all, but the last the most,

For I sought a word of a Russian post,

Of a shifty promise, an unsheathed sword

And a grey-coat guard on the Helmund ford.

Then Mahbub Ali lowered his eyes

In the fashion of one who is weaving lies.

Quoth he:  "Of the Russians who can say?

When the night is gathering all is grey.

But we look that the gloom of the night shall die

In the morning flush of a blood-red sky.

Friend of my heart, is it meet or wise

To warn a King of his enemies?

We know what Heaven or Hell may bring,

But no man knoweth the mind of the King.

That unsought counsel is cursed of God

Attesteth the story of Wali Dad.

 

"His sire was leaky of tongue and pen,

His dam was a clucking Khattack hen;

And the colt bred close to the vice of each,

For he carried the curse of an unstaunched speech.

Therewith madness -- so that he sought

The favour of kings at the Kabul court;

And travelled, in hope of honour, far

To the line where the grey-coat squadrons are.

There have I journeyed too -- but I

Saw naught, said naught, and -- did not die!

He hearked to rumour, and snatched at a breath

Of `this one knoweth', and 'that one saith', --

Legends that ran from mouth to mouth

Of a grey-coat coming, and sack of the South.

These have I also heard -- they pass

With each new spring and the winter grass.

 

"Hot-foot southward, forgotten of God,

Back to the city ran Wali Dad,

Even to Kabul -- in full durbar

The King held talk with his Chief in War.

Into the press of the crowd he broke,

And what he had heard of the coming spoke.

 

"Then Gholam Hyder, the Red Chief, smiled,

As a mother might on a babbling child;

But those who would laugh restrained their breath,

When the face of the King showed dark as death.

Evil it is in full durbar

To cry to a ruler of gathering war!

Slowly he led to a peach-tree small,

That grew by a cleft of the city wall.

And he said to the boy:  `They shall praise thy zeal

So long as the red spurt follows the steel.

And the Russ is upon us even now?

Great is thy prudence -- await them, thou.

Watch from the tree.  Thou art young and strong.

Surely the vigil is not for long.

The Russ is upon us, thy clamour ran?

Surely an hour shall bring their van.

Wait and watch.  When the host is near,

Shout aloud that my men may hear.'

 

"Friend of my heart, is it meet or wise

To warn a King of his enemies?

A guard was set that he might not flee --

A score of bayonets ringed the tree.

The peach-bloom fell in showers of snow,

When he shook at his death as he looked below.

By the power of God, Who alone is great,

Till the seventh day he fought with his fate.

Then madness took him, and men declare

He mowed in the branches as ape and bear,

And last as a sloth, ere his body failed,

And he hung like a bat in the forks, and wailed,

And sleep the cord of his hands untied,

And he fell, and was caught on the points and died.

 

"Heart of my heart, is it meet or wise

To warn a King of his enemies?

We know what Heaven or Hell may bring,

But no man knoweth the mind of the King.

Of the grey-coat coming who can say?

When the night is gathering all is grey.

Two things greater than all things are,

The first is Love, and the second War.

And since we know not how War may prove,

Heart of my heart, let us talk of Love!"

Kipling, The Ballad of the King's Jest. 

But those four things are tough things too, resulting in physical and psychological injury and sometimes death, but also, in a proper view that Theophilus might hold, to quite another direction as well.

There's always been men who feared not measuring up to the male ideal or the male role.  This has expressed itself differently in different eras. World War Two saw a surprising number of suicides undertaken by men who were rejected by draft boards.  They couldn't stand the thought of what that meant, in their own minds, and took their own lives.  I've already noted, in other threads, that the Apostolic clergy provided refuge for a certain number of men in former ears for same sex attraction.  

It's been well documented that in prisons certain men who have never demonstrated a transgender inclination before, but who are physical weak and in need of protection, will take on female attributes and become the "female" object of a same-sex relationship.  

In the extremely rough and violent world of Plaints Indians, there were, as is sometimes famously pointed out, men who would declare, at an early age, that they were really drawn to femininity and then would drop out of the male role for the female role.  While moderns like to pretend there's no division of labor by nature in human beings, there very clearly is, and that tellingly reduced those men to cooking, cleaning hides, and the like.  It meant they were exempt from killing other human beings and fighting, a normal part of cultures which exalted warriors.

Lakota warriors.  No doubt, every one of these men had killed other men.

Put another way, Crow Heart Butte in Wyoming, and near where this boy is from, is named that because Washakie killed a Crow chieftain and ate his heart.  Not because they met for tea.

And this raises an interesting point.

The waif like Audrey Hepburn in 1956, who was pretty clearly the model of female beauty for a man who recently promoted Bud Light as a woman.  She's a model, however, of safe female beauty that wouldn't really attract unwanted male attention. By 1956, the other type of female beauty, one more admired by males, was very much in circulation, as Playboy was expanding and the screens were full of Marilyn Monroe.

Men who try to affect a female appearance tend to take on an exaggerated one.  In modern society, if you go out on a city sidewalk on any particular day, you'll find at least a few young women wearing blue jeans and t-shirts and who are healthy muscular, in a female sense.  In offices and in office culture, you'll find most women wearing suitable office attire. You'll never find, however, a woman walking around with a feather boa, or trying to look like Audrey Hepburn, or wearing something like a polka dress.

But in the transgender community, you'll find all of that fairly commonly, although in this particular case that's not being demonstrated.

Indeed, here, in spite of what we're supposed to say, what we really see is a guy who looks like a very large, soft looking guy. 

Actor Robert Conrad, right, in The Killers. Conrad was always a big guy, but definately a guy.

Now, in the male world, you can be overweight, but being soft is pretty difficult.  It no doubt goes back to our earliest origins.  Most likely, our Cro Magnon ancestors didn't get fat, they were too resource poor to pull that off, but softness probably simply couldn't be tolerated.  There wasn't any room for "I don't want to fight that new tribe that just showed up" allowed.  And to a large degree, there still really isn't.

Going back to when I was really young, I can think of some instances of pretty soft teenage boys, but the way that they and everyone else handled it was different.  They were soft, but not so soft that they were unreliable in a pinch. Basically, like a lot of people with different personality traits, they'd learned how to rise to the occasion, and in their cases often frequently, to overcome them.

We don't do that anymore.  We face our failings by "accepting" them, which is not to face them at all.

Now, there's more to this than that, but perhaps not as much as we might think, for no sane man would ever want to be a woman.

Women like to be women, as their DNA provides for it.***  But very few men, if any, would be comfortable with bleeding a great deal on a routine and scheduled basis, being subjected to hormonal storms, or being subject to the numerous medical and physical problems just being a woman entails.  Women's worlds change at least monthly, and in reality more frequently than that.  Over the course of a lifetime, women's reality changed massively, once at puberty, later at childbirth, if they have children, and then again at menopause.  Women live longer, to be sure, but the existential nature of their existence practically means they undergo a deep physical and psychological chrysalis at least twice if not three or more times.  Women mature more quickly than men, but some of them endure such hard physical changes that the impacts are nearly shattering when they occur, and that doesn't even take into account the monthly cyclonic storms they endure.

To be male means having a predictable physical reality that only changes over decades and to some extent never does.  And indeed, transgendered men in fact avoid that.  They aren't going to endure the agony of menstruation for one thing, and they likely don't want to.  Most just keep their dicks and balls and call it good.

Old Man : Hey are all farmers. Farmers talk of nothing but fertiliser and women. I've never shared their enthusiasm for fertiliser. As for women, I became indifferent when I was 83. I am staying here.

Line from The Magnificent Seven.



Two imagines, once expected, and one exaggerated, of 20th Century manhood.  In the top image, a British Tommy holds the line. . . alone.  He's probably going to die.  In the second, the super macho and brooding Sgt. Rock, entertainer of thousands of juvenile males in the second half of the century, leads Easy Company into a charge.

To be a transgender male, in some ways, means dropping out of the expectations without picking up the pain and agony of being a woman.  Male strength remains, and repeated naturally programmed female physical distress does not arrive.  No matter what they may say, for the most part, transgendered men are dropping out of male society.  Men don't want them as lovers, and most of them have physical attributes, even with their pants buttoned up, that make them unattractive even if an unsuspecting male eye was cast on them.

Beyond that, however, they're omitted from the male warband when young.  Nobody is going to ever ask them what they'd do if they're drafted.  And nobody is going to conscript them into a bar fight, which almost every living Western male has had happened or nearly happen.  You aren't going to be asked to defend some woman's  honor.  You aren't going to intervene if somebody threatens your sister, girlfriend or wife.  You aren't, moreover, ever going to hear "go over and ask her to dance", and all that means and what follows.

U.S. teenage pregnancy rates from the mid 1970s to mid 2010s.  Contrary to what might be expected, if this chart went back to the 1950s, the rate would have started off even higher, as the 50s really saw the peak in recent U.S. teen pregnancy rates.  Exactly 0% of these pregnancies were to the transgendered expressing as female.  Some probably originated from the same group acting contrary to their declared expression.

You also, however, are going to usually be safe to women, except as alleged here where the allegations, which are denied, is that you are leering at boobs and getting erections.  This isn't true at all of other men, no matter how friendly they may be.  Some males, including some highly intellectual ones, hold that no real platonic friendship can ever exist between a man and a woman, as the man (not the woman) will always regard a female contemporary as at least a suppressed potential object of affection.****  While it may be misperceived, transgenendered men and homosexual men are usually received well by women, as that threat is generally absent, or at least conceived of being absent.

Highly romanticized illustration of a teenage mother from Street Arabs and Gutter Snipes, The Pathetic and Humorous Side of Young Vagabond Life in the Great Cities, With Records of Work for Their Reclamation 1884.

But none of that is natural, and all of it, in some fashion, is a cry for help.  Even the cry for acceptance is just that.

Over the years, sometimes personally, and sometimes professionally, I've known people who ended up needing help, some well after they'd received it.  I know one lawyer who is a convicted felon, but overcame that for a successful career.  I've met people who were addicted to drugs or alcohol, and overcame that.  Usually if you got down to it, you could see that they didn't take up their afflictions as they really enjoyed them, but because they were attempting to bury something else.  One lawyer I somewhat knew disappeared for about a month before his family found him, in another state, in a hotel room, having crawled into a bottle.  He wasn't there as he enjoyed drinking himself stupid in hotel rooms.

Some people, with more conventional afflictions, are like crashing trains right as you watch them.  And interestingly, if is a more conventional and traditional affliction, like addition to alcohol and sex, or the two combined, its commented about backdoor, but nobody ever says that being in that condition is just a life choice.  Everyone knows its not, and that is a disaster.

And so is this.

As the comment above notes, we help people on the autism spectrum, and we know that they may need help.  It's not regarded as a life choice.  But in 2023, everything sexual, except for pedophilism, is just an expression of individualism.  The ban on sex with children only remains as its so disgusting, as otherwise all the logic that applies to "accepting" every other sexual behavior applies equally to it, save for that its destructive to children.  But it's also destructive to adults, and its been shown that it tends to come on with people who have had multiple sex partners.

Transgenderism is like that.  There's no reason to believe that it is not a mental illness, one associated with other conditions, that can be arrested and addressed.

But in our political purity of the age, we're not doing that.  And that's destructive for the people making the declaration, who could have been helped.

We might, before concluding, stop to ask two questions. Does it really matter, would be the first.

After all, if somebody wants to drink themselves into oblivion, does it matter, if that's their choice?  Or more particularly, if somebody wants to present as a woman, who is a man, what does it really matter to me or anyone else?

Well, it does matter if your view of humanity is that we are our brother's keeper.  Oddly enough, in our contemporary world, it's the political left that claims that we are, while the political right, as exhibited by Jeanette Ward in a common in the last legislative session, feels we are not.  But most decent societies, and all Christian societies, feel that we are.

So there's a duty to the individual to help them live an ordered life. We know that living a disordered one leads to unhappiness.

There's a wider duty, however, to society.  Assaults on individual natures are assaults on nature in general, are destructive to us all.

And, additionally, telling a lie to yourself is one thing. But demanding, even with the force of law, that everyone else adopt the lie is quite another. That's completely destructive to the social structure, as enshrining lies as part of them inevitably leads to decay.

And finally, and more particularly, it's damaging to women in the extreme. Real women, that is.  Women know that they aren't men.  We all know that the biological life of a woman is radically different from a man's in nearly every sense.  Psychologically, it isn't the same either.  Reducing womanhood to appearing to have boobs is the most Hefnereque position of all, and an insult to women in every fashion.

Footnotes:

*I don't know how or why "day drinking", which is very often attributed to women, became cute. But it isn't.

**The existence of such non-academic clubs in schools is ample evidence of the intrusion of really left wing "progressive" values into schools. By and large I"m skeptical when such claims are made, but the recent library controversies over homosexual pornography in public schools shows there's definitely something to it, as do the existence of clubs that exist to effectively demand that inclinations that are poorly understood and fairly recently regarded as mental illnesses be accepted as normal.

***Having said that, there's plenty of evidence that well into the mid 20th Century, at least, plenty of women regretted having been born women, which isn't quite the same thing.

****Whatever hte truth of htat may be, it's pretty clear that it's not true of close relatives.  The "taboo" on incest is clearly ingrained enough into us to translate over to close relationship, such as cousins.