Ban Bossy

Posted on Updated on

Yet again, the modern feminist continues to astound with her detachment from reality. In an attempt to usurp yet even more power, Sheryl Sandberg, who’s some sort of big-whig at Facebook, started a new social engineering program called Ban Bossy.  The premise behind Ban Bossy is that assertive women are called bossy, while assertive men are considered leaders.

I pointed out the website to a friend of mine, who dejectedly messaged me back, saying that in all 4 decades of his life, it was only after receiving the BB message that he’d finally realized that only women were considered bossy in America.  The bossy men, otherwise known as assholes, jerks, micromanaging tyrants, and snakes in suits are held in much higher regard than bossy women, or so Sheryl Sandberg would have us believe.

Unfortunately a group of famous and ironically powerful ( a sense of irony is the first thing to go among Utopians) female leaders have taken to the BB podium, urging us all to never remind females that diplomacy, leading by example, respect, and truly caring for others is paramount to not only being a good leader, but having other people believe you’re a good leader. Beyonce throws the word Bitch around in her songs but here, she reminds us she’s not Bossy, by declaring “I’m not bossy, I am the boss.”

If I made such a statement to the men in my platoon in the Army, I would immediately lose all their respect, perhaps irrevocably.

Adam Grant, Ph.D, writes an excellent, though overly PC for my taste, post  in Psychology Today, addressing female bossiness. What he has to say matches exactly my own experience. He writes:

We react very differently when power is exercised by high-status and low-status people. In a pair of clever experiments, researchers Alison Fragale, Jennifer Overbeck, and Maggie Neale show that when people with high status also possess power, we perceive them as dominant, but also warm. We hold them in high regard, so we’re willing to follow their commands. When the same commands come from people who lack status, we judge them as dominant and cold. Since they haven’t earned our respect, they don’t have the right to tell us what to do.

When young women get called bossy, it’s often because they’re trying to exercise power without status. It’s not a problem that they’re being dominant; the backlash arises because they’re overstepping their status.

This is precisely my experience in the Army. I have worked for a couple of female leaders, and worked along side others that clearly thought they were leaders. One female 1 SG, who was way over her head, was bossy on steroids, yet could sometimes be seen crying in her office. Clearly, she always tried to exercise power beyond her status and it rubbed many people the wrong way, to the point that several of them wrote letters of complaint to the company commander. I also witnessed on several occasions, females who tried too hard to stand out and succeed, perhaps with the subliminal belief that they had to compete against men. The most competitive female I’ve ever worked with in the Army had virtually no friends at the time I knew her.

This is not to say that leaders should appear weak. Indeed, the opposite, as Machiavelli pointed out, is true. The problem with many women, is that they do not understand that demanding respect is seen as weakness. The second we feel the need to declare ourselves Caesar, we show we doubt ourselves.

Many women find it frustrating that men excel is leadership positions and attribute this to a system that selects men merely because they are men. Again, so out of touch are many women brought up in the age of Girl Power, they cannot perceive the truth of the matter. Men, from day one, are raised in an environment of competition. We are expected to be strong and to win. We quickly learn what works and what does not, and we rarely have some all-powerful or bossy organization, like the US government or a womens’ rights org to turn to if we fail. We don’t even have societal pressures to protect us. Trial and error always trumps academic musings. We learn on the playground that if we are too bossy, we may get punched in the nose. Girls don’t have this learning tool, as we all know from a young age that hitting girls is worse than hitting boys. Thus, we learn diplomacy, and if not we get branded the school bully.  Our leadership skills grow organically, and we understand that hierarchy is inherent in nature.  Sure we want to be on top, but we understand nothing beats hard work and competence.

Some women become frustrated when they are placed in leadership positions and people fail to respond to them. Studies show that young girls are very concerned with the perception of others, that people will not like them because they are leaders. To me, this shows that women actually do think being bossy is leadership.  They believe they must be unlikable to lead. So they try to be friends with some people, and then immediately shift to the bossy side of the spectrum when things don’t go the way they want. I see this sort of thing with modern mothers. they try to be friends to their children instead of parents. They are afraid of offending their child and think the child will not love them if they don’t act like as a peer does. But parents should never be seen as the peers of their children. Many mothers gleefully Facebook and text with their 13 year old daughters, as if they were sisters. The end result of this is that instead of being able to exercise authority by telling the child to be home at a certain time, or doing their homework, squabbles ensue that resemble fights between siblings. In the past my wife has become frustrated with our two daughters, because they unquestionably obey me, but when I leave the house will sometimes even resort to mild forms of physical violence against her, such as a kick to the leg from the 4 year old when she doesn’t want to get dressed. The 4 year old won’t display such aggression around me, let alone direct it at me. My wife believes this is some sort of magic which the universe has unjustly bestowed upon men. But I think it’s because men grow up in a world that asks more of them.

The more women believe and tout the mythology that they have it tougher than men, the less likely they will be received as leaders in this world. They should stop and consider why the ultimate act of despair, suicide, should be so overwhelmingly a male phenomena. Out of the 110 countries listed in Wikipedia under “List of countries by suicide rate”, only in one is the rate higher for women than men. In many other countries the rate for men is double or triple that of women.

The feminists are bringing even more scorn upon women in leadership positions with the Ban Bossy movement, without even proving  a problem. Respect and the title of leader is always earned. We can earn rank and titles, but status comes with accomplishment. The more women stomp their feet in protest, the more they damage their position.





Posted on Updated on

To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task.~ Frederick Nietzsche

Someone posted my recent blog post, The Feminization of Everything, on Reddit yesterday, and some other people posted a link to my article on other blogs, resulting in the single biggest day of blog traffic I’ve had on any blog I’ve hosted.

I’m not sure if it was done as a joke, as a prod, or as a genuine contribution to a string, but the person posted my article under the “feminism” subreddit. Of course, this subreddit is largely populated by feminists and my article is receiving some interesting comments. Actually, it hasn’t received one positive comment, though some frightened individuals appreciate my article, as it’s received twice as many “like’ votes as dislikes. It is  #3 in the “hot” tab under feminism, and #1 under the “controversial” tab.

I have never posted to Reddit, never used it to increase blog traffic. When I post links to my articles, it is usually because I want honest input from people I trust or know; I’m willing to see others’ views, and I want to know the weaknesses of my own arguments. Many times, blogging is a very inferior way of expressing one’s views on issues, as they tend to be written spur-of-the-moment. A book would be better.  I don’t handle my blog in a professional manner, though perhaps I should.

One comment on Reddit stated that my article seemed fascist. Another called it a “tantrum” and “junk”. One more implored others not to read the article at all, apparently afraid some may find some good in it.  I’m not sure if I should be honored or dismayed by this person’s opinion. I lean towards being honored. The last 5 years of my life have provided ample opportunity for self-examination, a crucible of honesty with myself. I realize my weaknesses, my strengths. I have something to say, I see problems in the world, and every so often a person comes along who can’t help but obsess about the tragedy of it all. Such is my melancholic personality.

Are my views fascist? I’ve asked the same question myself. And I’m willing to concede they are at some level.  But it’s almost meaningless to me. The only reason it’s not completely meaningless  is because I know I’ve made the right people uncomfortable. Change for the better rarely occurs without pain and discomfort.  The term fascism is as meaningless to me as the word “drug”. What kind of drug, aspirin or Methamphetamine? A single word cannot probe the intricacies of reality.

I regard the modern world as incredibly unauthentic, a poseur propped us by the rich daddies of yesteryear who did most of the work.  Acting as children, we play make believe in the mansion built by our forefathers. The mansion is crumbling for lack of maintenance.

I won’t spend time writing about the misuse and overuse of the term, “fascist.” The criticisms of the lazy usage of the word have become as cliche’ as the word itself. I will say however, that if someone wishes to insult me with a commonly misused and misunderstood word, “reactionary” would be more appropriate.  I would not deny the label.

Surprisingly, I found the definition that best suited me, not in Websters, but in the online Urban Dictionary:

One who supports Reaction in opposition to the general progressive Western zeitgeist, often accompanied by a sense that the expansion of democratic politcs has made life in general much worse either in absolute terms, or measured by what should have been achievable with modern science, reason, and technology; usually believes race is a real genetic construct and therefore not surprised at disparate average outcomes across large population groups; often believes human evolution has in part or in toto shaped human nature, which therefore cannot easily, or at all, be changed very much by social engineering and/or conditioning; usually believes heirarchy is imprinted upon mankind by nature and/or God, and that heirarchy is not only not necessarily evil, but desirable and even inevitable and ought not be torn down for any but the most grave reasons; tends to support tradition either as revealed by his religion and/or as successful adaptive memetic developments which usually solve deep and complex problems in human societies; anti-revolutionary; anti-socialist; anti-communist; anti-whig; anti-democratic; anti-globalist; skeptical; (once a term of derision, most reactionaries of late do happily so self-identify)
Tom suddenly realized he couldn’t find a single Republican at the convention who didn’t hail FDR anything less than a great hero. He remembered knowing conservatives in his youth who opposed both FDR and WWII. But where were they now? They had disappeared, but their thoughts and words had not. Tom hadn’t changed his mind about much in the past 25 years, but he suddenly realized he was a Reactionary.
Adequate, though, not of course complete. Years ago a friend of mine, whose opinion i respect, said that my thinking matched that of a gothic king, a pejorative remark that I like to wear as a badge of honor.
My view is generally that the world is worse than it was no more than 50 years ago, not because of technological progress, which serves to partially blind us to the inadequate order that now holds power, but because of the current social order, or more appropriately, disorder, that now reigns.  Just because you have a microwave and an IPhone does not mean the world is a better place than your great-grandfather’s world.  Of course, some things are better,  but in aggregate they are not. We are a deeply unhappy society for reasons the ancients would have easily perceived. But our instincts are dulled by mall shopping. We resort to gulping Zoloft.
I recently explained part of my world view to my wife, who generally agrees with my ideas on how men and women should act.  I said that I did not believe marriage was a democracy. Democracy is possible when there are thousands or millions of voters because it’s easy to find a majority; the chances of a perfectly even vote are practically nil.  However a marriage is made up of two people. A democracy of two does not work well at all. There is a distinct chance that two people will disagree on issues, and when, in a marriage, those issues involve money, sex or other fundamentally important issues, it’s important that there be a system for resolving those conflicts. In my marriage, that system is me. I get to decide if my wife can spend $400 on a new purse. Yes, that’s right, it’s patriarchy,  not democracy. If it were democracy we’d both be angry, me at her expenditure, her at my reaction to it. Carrying on this way results in the the end state of most marriages today: Divorce. We of course have had our problems, like most.  The problems lessened when the rules were states explicitly: She is woman, I am man. Stay in your lane, I’ll stay in mine. Surprisingly she agreed with all of it. I realize that most of these things should have been worked out before we got married, but it is the current social order that demands they not be worked out, that problems be resolved through the magic of democracy.
Instead of the magic of democracy, I told her, that in exchange for me having the power to veto a $400 purse purchase,that should a 250 pound felon with a machete decide, at 1 o’clock in morning, to enter our house to steal our flat screen tv for himself and be willing to  kill anyone unarmed and unable who tries to prevent him from getting it, I will stand and fight while she and the children exit the back door. Also, if we ever take a cruise, as on the Titanic in 1912, and we begin to sink, she and the children can get on the lifeboats before I do.
This all seems a fair trade. See, that’s the way it used to be. Men were not honored simply because they were men, but because they did something special. In our decadent society, we devalue that which was sacred in all societies before ours: The Soldier. I’m not saying this because I am a soldier, I became a soldier because I believed it sacred.  I often comment to my children that one of the most unattractive attributes a person can have is to be ungrateful. No ungrateful species can survive because it can not differentiate between what is important and what is not. Those that cannot appreciate people who protect them are decadent and bound to extinction. Unfortunately, if they outnumber those who respect the sacred, they will take those who are not decadent with them. All cultures before our current one honored the warrior because killing those whom are trying to kill you is better than slavery or extinction. Yes, America is far ahead of modern Europe in this regard. I’ve been overwhelmed by the expressed gratitude walking through airports in uniform. Most soldiers, including myself, don’t want to be patronized or doted over; we consider this to be a departure from the asceticism necessary to fighting wars, un-soldierly. Why I myself want is a worldview that respects that which is respectable.
While it’s tempting–and possible–to connect my worldview to that of the Prussian 2nd Reich, and some aspects of Sparta, (and I would not vigorously argue against you), it’s also possible to connect it with some of our founding fathers and past presidents, most notably, Andrew Jackson. Jackson, undoubtedly, would have been labeled a fascist, had the term been so cliche’ in his time. Yet, he embodies many of my beliefs. Anti-materialist, aristocratic, willing to smack a pie-hole where a pie-hole needs smacking, for small government, understanding the everyone–banks included–is susceptible to corruption. That honor meant something. Jackson said:
Every good citizen makes his country’s honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and its conscious that he gains protection while he gives it. But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.
Passe to the modern liberal and feminist. Arrogant, militaristic in tone–fascist. In other words you’d want Jackson on your side when your cushy circumstances go to hell.  Of course, liberals and feminists can not imagine a situation in which they would not have it easy. They really think the world has progressed, that they have made it much better.
The one thing that may worry these people is that, they, in fact, may be becoming passe, unfashionable. Nothing worries the modern more than what is fashionable. An increasing number of people, including women, are becoming disillusioned with the message of feminism, which they’ve tasted and found wanting. They discovered that it’s a lie. What the feminists and progressives must realize, is that their fashion may end up like the Pet Rock. Feminism and the modern progressive movement is an anomaly, an outlier, never before practiced even in ancient democracies such as Athens.  The feminists and progressives may well look back in 40-50 years and long for days pasts. They may become the reactionaries.

The Femininization of Everything

Posted on Updated on

[T]he regime of diversions, surrogates, and tranquilizers that pass for today’s ‘distractions’ and ‘amusements’ does not yet allow the modern woman to foresee the crisis that awaits her when she recognizes how meaningless are those male occupations for which she has fought, when the illusions and the euphoria of her conquests vanish, and when she realizes that, given the climate of dissolution, family and children can no longer give her a sense of satisfaction in life. ~Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger

I miss men. I miss my grandfather.  He was a man. And he wasn’t sorry for being a man. He was never told to be sorry for being a man, or acting like one. He never pondered the “social constructs” of gender. He liked Lawrence Welk, Archie Bunker, knives, guns, boxing.  He welded for a living. He wore flannel. He killed animals and ate them, fed them to his family. He didn’t pop his collar. He used Lava soap to rip the grease off his hands after doing the work men did. For him and his generation, life was not a sterile, over-analyzed bore.

Safety killed us. Such are the heights of the giants’ shoulders we stand on, such were their labors, such were their sacrifices, we were made too safe, too comfortable. We came to hate our betters, just as the Helots hated their Spartan masters. And so we dived into every fantasy, every unrealism, believing the opposite of reality as a sort of revolt. We became lazy, ungrateful. We enjoyed the nectar of being critical, and so criticized to disintegration those who made our free nation: Men.

Women didn’t freeze to death at Valley Forge, storm Normandy, they didn’t rot in Hanoi. And they never will, because the current “integration” of our military is theater and a power grab.  It’s playing doctor, cowboys and Indians at the expense of us all.  The people who want women in military combat arms know woman can’t actually do what men can do, but they enjoy seeing men cringe and squirm over such excesses.  Of course, women won’t pour into such billets, because they are difficult, though even when they end up there, they still won’t find it as difficult as do men, because men will treat them better than they do other men. And the feminized bureaucracy will ensure they have it easier, national defense be damned.

The United States Marines require that men do 20 pullups in order score the maximum points on their physical fitness test. Women are required to do exactly zero.  How’s that for egalitarianism? The Marine Corps tested 318 female Marines, and found that on average, they could do 1.6 pullups.  Yet, when I last tested myself at 39 years old, I could do 20 pullups. Many classically male jobs, such as firefighting and police work have distinctly different physical qualifications for women than men.  Women do not have to register for the draft, but of course their  inferiors–men–do.

The way we fight war itself has become feminized. We treat our enemies like the single mom treats her kids: We try to buy them stuff until they quit throwing temper tantrums.  We don’t win wars any more. The trade schools are considered a sub-par option for those not worthy or capable of the “higher” intellectual pursuits of gender studies. No thought is given by these elite snobs as to who builds their cars, roads, laptops and latte machines.

In a strikingly Nietzschean world, Slave Morality reigns, the Spartans now serve the Helots. As Nietzsche states, Slave Morality originates in the weak and is deployed by the weak as a weapon against the strong.  It is not necessarily drawn as a weapon of righteousness; it’s usually the sword of resentment. Slave Morality–Feminism–does not seek the impossible, that is, to make men and women equal in all things. Instead, it seeks to neuter men and weigh them down with a lodestone that will ensure men cannot surpass women in any meaningful way. The Helots now rule the Spartans.  The feminists used the tactic commonly employed by children on mothers in order to get what they do not deserve: Whining.

The false notion that sexual assault is rampant in our military was predictably seized by the Left, who lose sleep nightly over racial and gender issues.  The number of sexual assault reports in the military this year is up 50% this year, after it became fashionable to be raped. Ignored are studies that show over 40% of rape allegations are false [Kanin, 1994].

Everywhere we look, from our earliest days to our last, we see the philosophy of woman. Television shows, movies, politics, almost all of it aimed at women’s tastes. This is not to say that the feminine, the womanly, or motherhood are bad things, indeed they are good things, but so are classically manly traits. Yet our entire cultural system is bent on making boys more like girls. They must be sensitive, they must sit still, they must not joust. The NFL now celebrates Breast Cancer Awareness by allowing players to wear pink football gear during allotted games. Men must be made aware of female supremacy, that we are being watched, monitored controlled, at all times. Even during our classically male moments, such as playing football. What is the male color by the way? Do we have a color? I’m not sure.  I’m trying to imagine Dick Butkus or Mike Ditka in pink. It’s not working for me. But of course, there are no women in the National Football League, but Americans actually care about their team winning football games, unlike winning wars. We’ve become an unserious country, rolling toward the glue factory.

Oprah decides the fate of nations. One study found that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama resulted in an additional one million votes.   She tells women to go their own way, that they can do anything men can do. Can they? Should they? At the core of the modern feminist movement and others Leftist movements like it, is the the use of pity as a weapon.  Pity is used to relieve people of the duties of a Natural Law they despise. Pity is used to escape the carrying out of some people’s duties, to gain power over those susceptible to pity’s draw. It is a perverse utilization of a subtle Christian ethic, taking advantage of those who lack street wisdom.  Pity has its place, but it can also be misused. We need not agree with everything Nietzsche had to say, just as Nietzsche did not agree with everything that his mentors, Arthur Schopenhauer and Richard Wagner said. This does not mean we cannot glean truth from some of Nietzsche’s writings. The cult of pity, and the misuse of pity as a sordid sentiment has resulted in an American military that is barely functional. First, an army draws its soldiers from a population organic to its nation, thus, it can suffer from many of flaws endemic to that nation. I have a ground-level view of those flaws as an NCO in the Army.  The call for pity is the default setting for many soldiers wishing to avoid Duty.  I’m not averse to having pity on those that deserve it, but I regard those who attempt to avoid Duty by feigning weakness (or the belief that feeling any discomfort at all means that something is “wrong”) as thieves. They are trying to steal something to which they have no right. They long for victim-hood and all its benefits. This perverse inverse of traditional values for women began with perhaps its most troubling aspect: Its loathing of motherhood, of parenting, of homemaking, as if being a housewife were tantamount to slavery. from this root grew the withered tree of cultural demise.  As the German philosopher Oswald Spengler wrote,

“When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard ‘having children’ as a question of pro’s and con’s, the great turning point has come.”

A proto-feminist, upon reading my concerns of birthrates and modern attitudes toward motherhood, quipped that she did not feel it necessary to reproduce merely to prop up her society. But she misunderstood. The mere fact that she and the rest of the West has asked the question: “Are children worth it?”, means that the fatal seed is already planted and even blooming. Such a question is like asking, “is eating worth it?”, “is the sun rising worth it?”.  So, if Spengler was correct, we are already dying.  When motherhood becomes tantamount to dishonor, count your nation as dead and rotting. The perverse inverse continues in its paradoxical reinvention of what is feminine. Oddly, it is now feminine to be masculine, yet masculinity when practiced by men is demonized. This can only equate to men being deemed as bad. Again paradoxically, the feminist disapproval of motherhood has led to even more doting over children, who are not allowed to take risks common to children of even 15 years ago. We now give “timeouts”, as opposed to concrete discipline. Can youn imagine a child being sent to bed without Doritos, err, dinner nowadays? The typical male response of men from my grandfather’s age was “toughen up”, and parents were not seen as human entertainment machines. It was well established that doting over children ruined them, that even picking them up too often could damage them. Whining and pouting earned a trip to their room, excommunicated for conduct unbecoming.  Now such behavior earns more soda and candy.  The hours spent outdoors by young people in past years is now replaced by hours on a couch.  So spoiled are many of today’s children, that nothing can sate their appetites, nothing can satisfy, nothing can make them content for more than 30 minutes.  Such are the wages of overindulgence and the absence of the classic male response to unjust complaints: Toughen up. We have made children into anti-stoics, the opposite of the Buddhist ideal of the Middle Path.

But perhaps the feminists have overplayed their hand. There is a surge of male unrest, a revolt against the metro-sexual ideal of the sedate, passive man willing to serve his time as house Helot. Some men have realized they don’t want participation trophies, as they have no transcendental meaning, no value. A man’s inner longings are often about value, giving life meaning, about the fact that the things that are earned through pain and blood are the things most valued in life. Some men like emerging from an athletic game, tired, bloodied.  In the feminine society, there is something wrong with this. In the man’s world of old, pain was viewed as the refiner’s fire, moving men beyond the materialism so prevalent today.  To those men, life is not about smart phone apps, the latest fashion, a perfectly comfortable life, Doritos, Starbucks, Oprah, GLAAD, strippers, drugs, Obamacare, or Miley Cyrus. For some, life is about the transcendental state that can only be achieved by doing what is difficult. The feminized society tried to make war safe, against Sherman’s warnings.

I think Camille Paglia is right.  What we’re seeing is the decline of our civilization, but no one wants to move to do anything, because as with the Methamphetamine addict whose body withers and erupts with boils as death approaches, the pleasure felt during our death is too great.  Even those who secretly see the problems at hand are embarrassed to contradict the herd. They are not sufficiently convinced by their own convictions, the modern culture has shamed them into submission. But as for me, count me as Riding the Tiger, the good Roman soldier who stood at his post fulfilling his Duty even as Vesuvius erupted and slew him.

Oswald Spengler: We Are Doomed
Oswald Spengler: We Are Doomed

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.” `~Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics


Posted on Updated on

Obligatory Disclaimer:  I’m not a doctor.  I’m not telling you that should got get smashed every day on mouthwash and Sterno.  Or any other intoxicant.  My writing is a record of my experiences and research done by professional scientists.  Oh, and Frederick the Great said beer is awesome.

Few things are so demonized and yet so commonly utilized as alcohol.  Whenever I speak of the evils of drug use, the defenders of pot-heading inevitably bring up booze.  To them, if I admire the powers of aspirin, I must also snort lines of cocaine from my coffee table.  Both are drugs after all.

As a police officer, I did quite often deal with drunk people.  But more often the problems came form people who weren’t drunk at all.  They were jerks, evil, or having really bad days.  Sometimes they just happened to be driving too fast.

I drink.  Beer, mostly, and sometimes wine.  I went through a time when I enjoyed Vodka and orange juice, but found that to be too much sugar.  So I went back to beer and wine.  Heineken is my beer of choice, though I live in Germany, so I have many options.  When I began writing my book a couple of years back, I noticed how much easier the writing process was when I had a glass of wine or a beer going.  It seemed to grease the wheels.  Now, I love writing.  I don’t know why, but when my fingers begin skipping across the keyboard it seems to light up portions of my brain that aren’t otherwise active.  I feel happier when writing then when I’m not.  I also feel happier when I’m drinking than when I’m not.  I’m only slightly ashamed to admit this.  The older I get, the less ashamed of it I get.

All my family are or were drinkers, but none of them were alcoholics.  A few years back, it occurred to me that the advanced countries of the world drink alcohol, and the least developed do not.  It is not a matter of technology as the Sumerians were making beer thousands of years ago.  As a matter of fact, its seems that throughout history alcohol had a central role in the most advanced countries.  Rome and Greece, wine was consumed with almost every meal.  I mentioned the Sumerians.  David, in the Old Testament, thanks God for wine “that makes me happy.”  Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine.

I began doing some research.  Guess what.  Alcohol is good for you.  I know I’ll irritate the people that want to find the Grand Unified Theorum of Life, the ones that want a clear system for Good and Evil, for health and vigor.  All drugs =all bad is a myth.  Remember, I’m mostly anti-drug.  Pot is bad.  Injecting heroin in bad, though of course opiates are a miracle in the medical world.  All drugs probably have a positive role in the proper context.  Caffeine has been studied intensely by the military and its positive effects are undeniable.

But alcohol has a bad rap, not in the least because of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MAAD).  I’m against drunk driving of course.  But I’m also against talking on cell phones while driving and some studies show this is worse than driving drunk.  Yet almost everyday I see people talking on cell phones while driving.  MAAD’s campaign against alcohol spilled from its original intent.  Most people now think that booze is an evil that we accept in a free society.  I disagree.  From what I’ve seen and experienced, I believe alcohol is good for its own sake.  Yes, a person can drink too much, just as they can eat too much, exercise too much, and surf the internet too much.

I readily admit that my admiration for alcohol is likely do to my personality type.  American writers were and are notorious drinkers.  Hemingway, Poe, Faulkner, Fitzgerald among others.  Few can match their ingenuity or productivity.

Other poetic geniuses ruthlessly defended alcohol:

WB Yeats: ” The problem with some people is that when they’re not drunk, they’re sober.”

WC Fields:  ” A woman drove me to drink and I never had the courtesy to thank her.”

The list goes on.  While it’s easy and politically correct to note that many historical figures drank too much or were labeled alcoholics, it does cause one to question what the term alcoholic actually means.  From Churchill, to Alexander the Great to the Roman genius, Sulla, the charge of alcoholism  abounds.  Yet so does their greatness.

Interestingly, alcohol consumption correlates highly with IQ:  The more you drink, the higher is your IQ, even adjusting for social factors.

Oh yeah, and then there’s the increased life span of drinkers.   

“In a study of more than 80,000 American women, those who drank moderately had only half the heart attack risk of those who did not drink at all, even if they were slim, did not smoke and exercised daily. Moderate drinking was about as good for the heart as an hour of exercise a day. Not drinking at all was as bad for the heart as morbid obesity.”

“The science supporting the protective role of alcohol is indisputable; no one questions it any more,” said Dr. Curtis Ellison, a professor of medicine and public health at the Boston University School of Medicine. “There have been hundreds of studies, all consistent.”

Doctors who participated in the Framingham Study, an early study of diet and heart disease, were ordered to hide their findings of the healthy effects of drinking.  The findings were too counter-intuitive.

There is a limit to how much one can drink and gain any benefits from it. Eating 8 pounds of broccoli a day is probably bad for us, too.  I wouldn’t try it.

My father always drank beer.  Pretty much every day.  He drank Schlitz and Pabst Blue Ribbon, 16 oz cans.  He got up for work everyday, and on weekends was always doing something physical, and he drank lots of beer.  He still does, as he approaches 70.

Frankly, all the negative talk about alcohol annoys me.  I drink beer every night, I’m 40 years old, and I crush almost all of the 25 year olds in my army unit in almost all the physical activities.  A few mornings ago, I was told last minute that I’d be taking part in a 3 kilometer timed run.  I lined up surrounded by people younger than me.  I crossed the finish line first after passing several flabby youngsters on the way.  They should drink more beer and less soda.

To me, drinking beer is part of being a man.  But being a man is a lost art isn’t it?  Men aren’t really allowed to have much fun anymore.  We’re supposed to be more like women.  Watching sports on TV is considered decadent but who can miss an episode of Jersey Shore or Real Housewives?  I think we’re supposed to shave our chests, too.  Beards, a manly trait throughout history, are far too manly in today’s world.  Men are supposed to pay as much attention to their looks and dress as women, now, and many men drink mixed drinks when they should be drinking beer.

We all have our vices.  Mine just happens to be good for me.

Take all domestic issues with a grain of salt

Posted on Updated on

Don’t believe everything you hear, especially when one side has produced professionally made recordings and tampered with them.

Here, professional forensic scientists who’ve analyzed the Mel Gibson recordings, revealed by Radar online, say  that someone altered the tapes.

It was obvious to me that the tapes did not reveal the whole context of the conversation. I’ve arrested plenty of men for domestic violence in my days on the force. It took me about two years before I realized that I had to carefully analyse the situation and take everything with a degree of suspicion. The women tended to try to hurt in very sneaky ways, while the men were more direct. I arrested one guy, whom I remember in particular because I chased him around his kitchen while he wore only underwear. Later on, I came to the conclusion that she’d lied to get him arrested. The guy was not a nice fellow–he had plenty of run-ins with the law, but so did she. Still, she marked herself up in obvious ways and than called the cops because she was mad at him. Later, she refused to testify.

This also shows that men, many times, are incapable of making good decisions in the presence of sexual stimulus. I guarantee that for the last year or so, Mel Gibson’s head has been spinning so fast he can barely stand. Studies also show that men take break-ups much harder, becoming almost 7 times more likely to kill themselves. Some of this is cultural, as it seems that women have an easier time finding replacements.

And just because Gibson is acting this way with Grigorieva, doesn’t mean he’s always acted this way. It’s a myth that the actions of others have no affect on our own actions. Gibson’s ex-wife of 28 years, Robyn Gibson,  filed documents stating that Gibson was never abusive.

Sorry Fem-Nazis. I don’t condone domestic violence. What I do condone is Gibson leaving the obviously manipulative, overly-dolled up gold digger. Some women just drive men nuts. There’s a better life out there. Let her roast in her own misery. The plastic won’t hold up for ever.

I know I’ll take a beating for this

Posted on Updated on

In case you didn’t know, Mel Gibson has a temper problem. 

But let me just say this: I’ve seen men driven to insanity by bad relationships. Men better than I. I’ve had my battles with insanity myself. There’s a million sad and angry songs because of relationship pain.

There’s no excuse for Mel Gibson if he hit  Oksana Grigorieva, his girlfriend with whom he’s had a child. I’m a big proponent of personal responsibility. The easiest way to make the world better is to quit worrying about everyone else and work on ourselves.

Mel should have known better. But Mel fell for the oldest trick in the book: A younger woman with fake boobs.
Oh yeah, she was Russian, too.

Mel Gibson left his wife of 30 years and started a relationship with  Grigorieva. His divorce is not yet final. He’s admitted in interviews that his ex-wife  was a much better person than he, that he has a legion of personal demons, including alcoholism.

When I hear the tapes leaked to the media, I hear jealousy, the most virulent and extreme emotion in human experience. Cain killed Abel because he was jealous. But again, Mel should have known better. A woman who pays so much attention to her looks is trouble. Plus, she has millions to gain. Mel had little to gain.

Critics should be careful. I’d like to know what many of them have said or done in the heat of the moment when they’ve fought with their partners.

The best thing that can happen for Mel Gibson is that he stay completely away from  Grigorieva. He will need his friends. His real friends who don’t care about his millions. Someone who’ll just sit and talk, because I know–I just know–that Gibson feels bad about what he did and said. I’m not saying that feeling bad is enough, but his rage dulled his good sense.

And sorry, but my instincts scream when I see  Grigorieva. She selectively released some tapes. She denies releasing them. Who did? I’m sure she acted like the perfect angel while on tape, but I’m sure she knows the buttons to push to get Mel going. And it’s perfect timing, what with their custody battle meaning millions of dollars for her if she wins.

So again. Mel’s friends need to keep him away from her. There’ll be no sanity in him until she’s out of the picture. Give her her millions and just let her go, Mel. There’s plenty of other good looking younger women who want your cash.

And your movies, Braveheart, The Passion of The Christ, and Apocalypto are still some of the best movies I’ve ever seen.