Maggie's Farm

WSJ: The proposed new edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders could place large swaths of the population under the umbrella of pathology.  One quote:

...good psychiatrists do not rely too heavily on the DSM when they care for patients. There is simply no substitute for observing the patient, listening to his story, and fine-tuning his treatments—psychological and pharmacological—as needed.

The framers of the DSM III knew this well. They cautioned against manual users taking too literally the sharp boundaries drawn between disorders and between disorder and mental health. "This version," they wrote in the preface, "is only one still frame in the ongoing process of attempting to better understand mental disorders." Thirty years later, despite undeniable progress in brain science, we are saying much the same thing.

Well said, Dr. Satel.

Ed. Addendum:  Louis Menand, with wonderful clarity, looks at the tendency to pathologize everything into a "disorder" in The New Yorker. Every human has his own difficulties, weaknesses, pains, sorrows, limitations, fears, heartaches, struggles. No one can catalogue and categorize them all. Simply trying to understand one person is a heck of a challenge.

A quote from Dr. Laura (my bolds):

People don’t actually “grow apart” in relationships. They simply stop taking care of each other. They stop waking up and looking at their spouse with gratitude and awe. They stop finding ways to make that person happy that they are married to each other. They stop behaving as though they love that person with their last breath. They basically stop being the kind of person they themselves would want to come home to.

And then I find myself thinking "Who the heck would want to come home to face themselves?"

From Bowman at New Criterion's Ain't Gonna Study War No More:

In the media’s view, everything must be over-determined by circumstance — or the mistakes of the Bush administration — so that acts of terror become like acts of God, both in their causes and in the limited and ad hoc way they demand to be dealt with. Insofar as questions of war and peace arise, it is only by way of demonstrating that war must be thought of as a struggle to understand the other side — the unspoken assumption being that there is always a way to get the enemy to stop fighting by understanding and sympathizing with him and without having to defeat him in battle — as the old, unmentionable honor culture would once have insisted. Got that?

PC makes some hatreds privileged and deserving of "understanding," and others not so.

There are people who hate me purely because they have learned of my conservative/libertarian political views. Real, venomous hatred, despite the fact that I believe myself to be a friendly, kind, thoughtful, reasonably attractive, socially appropriate, and relatively warm person with a respectable pedigree and well-bred manners.

Truly, and trite as it sounds, some or even most of my best friends are Liberal-ish, and I have never hated anyone for their political views. In social situations, it doesn't even register with me. 

I do not understand this hatred, but I admittedly have never spent much time trying to understand it either. It does hurt my feelings, though.

Yes, I am voting for Scott Brown today, and not just because he is a hunk.

A book: The Importance of Fathers: A Psychoanalytic Re-evaluation

About the documentary: “In Search of Memory: The Neuroscientist Eric Kandel”  A wonderful fellow.

Alcohol myopia. I recently learned that alcohol doesn't just induce disinhibition (duh)and one-track preoccupations, but it also exaggerates inhibitions: scared drunks are more fearful of danger than the sober - when they are reminded of it. Who knew?

I have been thinking quite a bit about Sociopathy (aka Antisocial Personality, aka Psychopathy, aka in the young "Conduct Disorder") lately. People without a conscience who view others as objects of gratification or as tools to be used. I have missed the diagnosis several times over the past few years, to my regret. Many experts are known to miss it until something happens to wave the red flag in front of your face.

It's not just an important diagnosis for us shrinks to make: it's important for everybody out in the world. 2-3% of humans probably have enough sociopathic traits to be of concern in life. It's a strange partially genetic adaptation. Some end up as leaders and moguls, many end up addicts, dead, or in jail. Sociopathy knows no economic, cultural, or ethnic boundaries.

What is this "condition"?

It's a tricky thing, sociopathy. It has been well-described from many points of view. We analysts often think of it as being based in an absence of empathy - an inability to experience others as other than as objects to be exploited, used, predated upon, etc. An inner coldness and calculatingness towards others, but not to be confused with obsessional personalities who simply protect their emotions, and not be confused with those with immoral or amoral impulses - everybody has those.

However, successful sociopaths learn to create a warm, caring, engaged, and often charming presentation of themselves to the world. Very successful and smart sociopaths learn how to live honest lives and to channel their talents, guile and wiles into honest paths.

Full-blown sociopathy is generally considered an untreatable and incurable condition. I am not convinced that that is true - but I think it requires special methods which are outisde of regular Psychiatry. Sociopathic traits are far more common than the supposed 2% of the population that are said to be full sociopaths. I am not going to write an essay on this complicated topic, but will just offer some links for those who are interested:

Wiki has a simple introduction to the topic

A classic book by Cleckley: The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So Called Psychopathic Personality

An interesting paper: THE SOCIOBIOLOGY OF SOCIOPATHY: AN INTEGRATED EVOLUTIONARY MODEL

I have more links on the topic, but no more time right now.

I believe that we all have an immature side which wishes - or sometimes pretends - that our unwise and ill-considered actions might not have negative consequences. Some people have more of that wish, some less. Also, some people learn from bad experience better than others.

(I am not talking about neurotics who unconsciously or semi-consciously invite trouble upon themselves.)

As parents, we often have to invent consequences, eg a spanking if they run into the street, or grounding if they defy a curfew. However, the best teacher of consequences isn't parental discipline: it's Mr. Reality, aka The School of Hard Knocks.

Dr. Dobson has a brief simple discussion of the topic: Behavior and Consequences - The effective use of a powerful parenting tool

At the wonderful Hall of the Fishes at New York's American Museum of Natural History there is a preserved female Anglerfish. Attached to her is a bump with a tiny tail on it, which looks like a parasite.

It isn't. It's the shrunken remnant of a male Anglerfish. The males attach themselves to a female, and their bodies shrink away into nothing but male gonads permanently attached to the females. (You can read about Anglerfish here.)

I was reminded of Anglerfish by Kay Hymowitz's piece at City Journal, "The Incredible Shrinking Father," which takes a look at voluntary single motherhood in America and the role of artificial insemination. It is remarkable that, in one generation, something that had been considered a family tragedy is now considered, by some anyway, a "lifestyle choice."

A quote from her essay:

You’d think that we had enough problems keeping fathers around in this country, what with out-of-wedlock births (over a third of all children are born to unmarried women, and, in most cases, the fathers will fade from the picture) and divorce (the average divorced dad sees his kids less often than he takes his car in for an oil change). But these days, American fatherhood has yet another hostile force to contend with: artificial insemination. This may sound a tad overheated. After all, AI has been around, by some accounts, for over a century. And the number of kids born through the procedure each year, though steadily growing, remains quite small relative to the millions of babies conceived, as we can now say completely without irony, the old-fashioned way.

But aided by a lucrative sperm-bank service industry, an increasingly unmarried consumer base, a legal profession and judiciary geared toward seeing relationships through a contractual lens, and a growing cultural preference for individual choice without limits, AI is advancing a cause once celebrated only in the most obscure radical journals: the dad-free family. There are multiple ironies in this unfolding revolution, not least that the technology that allows women to have a family without men promotes the very male carelessness that leads a lot of women to become single mothers in the first place. And fatherless families are a delicate proposition, as AI families are discovering, since all the scientists’ technology and all the lawyerly contracts can’t take human nature out of human reproduction.

Leaving aside the fact that single motherhood accounts for a large percentage of America's poverty stats (that's another article in itself), I consider voluntary single motherhood to be the height of selfishness, immoral, irresponsible, and no favor to a kid. I do not believe that "it takes a village" to raise a family, but I do think that, for a number of practical and psychological reasons which I will not go into now, it takes two parents to do it - one of each type. A couple of sets of grandparents, and some aunts and uncles, are good too, if you can get 'em. Paid help is no substitute because blood is thicker than money.

Fortunately, we live in a free country, and freedom implies the freedom to make stupid and irresponsible choices. That is why freedom requires maturity, education, intelligence, and restraint for things to work. Being a free citizen in a free republic demands a lot from a person, and all of us have to dig deep to find the strength.

You can read Hymowitz's entire piece here.

Image: A lovely female Anglerfish

Why don't colleges just collect all of the grievance study groups and put them in one department. Fat Studies, Anorexia Studies, Queer Studies, Women's Studies, Hispanic Studies, Black Studies, Indian Studies, Transexual Studies, Lesbian Studies, Klutz Studies, Oppressed Studies, Ugly Studies, Not-Too-Smart Studies, Too-Short Studies, etc.

You could call it Boo Hoo Studies, and in it you could sequester everyone who expects college to cater to their narcissism instead of teaching them about bigger, better, and more important things than themselves. Baby bottles in the coke machine, over in that department.

Eventually, they will need to include one more increasingly marginalized and disenfranchised  minority in Boo Hoo Studies - Regular People Living Without Grievance. RPLWG just can't get a break these days, can they?

Editor's note: Or, to borrow the phrase from The Anchoress, could it be called the "It's All About Me" Studies Department?

A Dr. B. re-post from our long-ago archives -

"Why do I do all these things for Jim, Dr Bliss, when for the past six months I can't stand his presence and I can't even stand the way he eats? Is it because I feel guilty, or have no self-esteem?"

Guilty? Self-esteem? It's of interest to me how the morality-free zone of psycho-babble in our popular culture can obscure the persistence of the old virtues, even among those who live them.

The language of duty, loyalty, honor, self-sacrifice, endurance, perseverance, reliability, courage, self-reliance - the things Bill Bennet wrote about - has been replaced by a language of "feeling" and "guilt" in some strange and ill-informed distortion of psychoanalytic understandings.

Indeed, "my feelings" appear to have replaced the virtues to the point that "not being true to your feelings" is like a modern-day sin. And yes, I guess it is a sin - if you regard yourself as a god.

But back to my patient. I know her well enough to know that she was raised with the sturdy Mid-Western Presbyterian virtues, internalized them, and lives them. Her kindness and thoughfulness with her husband are driven by character (in the old sense of the word) - not guilt, and surely not, at the moment anyway, by "loving feelings." For her, it would not be so much "guilt" in betraying her character - it would be "failure." And not life failure, but a failure to be who she was built to be.

The point I want to make is not about my patient's psychology, or how she ought to deal with her situation. That's another subject. It's about the pop-psych assumptions that are in the air that would cause a person who "does the right thing" despite her emotions of the moment is somehow afflicted by "guilt" or some other pathology (although guilt is not a pathology), rather than being a mature person whose habits of character are stronger than her emotions.

I sometimes joke that if we were all true to our feelings, we'd all be in jail.

A few take-home points:

• Distrust the elevation of "feeling" over character. It is immature. That is not to say that we should ignore our emotions - it's just that they are not sacred, they are seldom what they seem, and they can be very poor guides to life. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, psychoanalytic thinking does not make emotions sacred: they are just surface data points.
  
• Guilt is neither a pathology nor a sin. In my experience, guilt is usually well-earned. So-called "neurotic guilt" is a psychological issue for some, but those with plenty of it never know they have it, without therapy.
  
• "Character" - meaning virtuousness, not personality type - is culturally-defined, and transmitted mainly via family with, one would hope, the support of genetics and of the surrounding culture.
  
• The only definition of "failure" I have is failure of character. We should feel like a failure when we fail in the virtues that we have been raised on - assuming that they are a worthy set of virtues. When we fail, we should repent, seek forgiveness, beat ourselves up a bit, contemplate our shortcomings, learn, and move forward.
  
• Despite the prevalence of amoral, pop-psychological language,  decent people still live, or struggle to live, according to the time-honored virtues. If they do not - keep your distance and beware, because they are "coming from a different place" and are playing by a different rule-book.

New Years Eve. Time to party hearty? Been there, done that in youth. No more. There's no point to it.

We ask our readers to please drink responsibly. Each reader is precious to us, and we cannot afford to lose one to a traffic accident.

Speaking of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, here's an interesting report on The Three Types of Alcoholism. I am not sure whether it corresponds well to my clinical experience or not. Probably not. However, this does:

The authors note that this finding supports two pathways to alcoholism: one where drinking represents a tendency to behave impulsively and seek excitement, and a second where drinking is used to relieve negative mood states and reduce behavioral inhibition.

In other words, substance addiction often - but not always - has underpinnings of either neuroticism or sociopathy. In the end, every human - drunk or sober - is a unique individual with his own basket of issues.

Probably yes.

While I am quite pleased and content with my own (first) marriage, when I talk with unhappy people, which I do all day, I am often reminded that the nuclear family is a very recent invention, that the notion of romantic love is also recent, that arranged marriages and marriages of convenience or necessity were the norms of the past, and that humans are not "naturally" monogamous - whatever I might mean by "naturally".

When you put the nuclear family together with dreams of enduring romantic love, it's a set-up for disappointment. The nuclear family, unlike the extended family (or the tribe), is isolating and does not provide a broad base of support in life. Intense romantic love, unlike plain old-fashioned strong attraction and desire, is a regressed state of mind - some shrinks half-jokingly call it a form of insanity. Not that it isn't great fun, but it gives way to reality in time, although the best marriages can rekindle the old feeling from time to time.

One thing that is probably not talked about enough is how many marriages are not founded in "true love," but instead are founded on loneliness, desire for companionship, desire for babies, desire for security, fear of becoming an old maid, friendship, desire for a social foundation, etc. This is not a bad thing, but I sometimes wonder whether the contrived and ridiculously costly fairy-tale trappings of the typical American wedding is designed to obscure those facts. Young folks these days often talk about having "friends with benefits" while they await true love, without realizing that "friends with benefits" can be one description of one kind of satisfying marriage.

But to get back on track here, yes, I believe that we tend to wish that a marriage could meet all of our emotional and physical needs. Shrinks term that a regressive, ie childish, wish - not just because it is unrealistic, but also because if emphasizes the "meeting my needs"  aspect of a relationship rather than emphasizing "how can I try to give these people (wife, kids)  a good life".

It's a truism that people thrive when they have multiple sources for emotional care, and many outlets for love and caring. Friends, colleagues, neighbors, members of clubs or churches, etc, Making and keeping good friends is not really an easy thing to do, and I don't know anyone who doesn't want one, or doesn't want another one. In fact, I suspect that one reason moms want jobs these days is because they feel isolated with their kids.

Althouse noted a NYT op-ed piece by History Prof Stephanie Coontz about the limits of marriage. Althouse comments:

The problem, in Coontz's view, is not only that we deny ourselves the happiness to be found in friendships, but also that by expecting so much from one romantic relationship, we can put so much pressure on it that it breaks. What's worse, if the marriage was our source of happiness, we have nothing.

Quotes from the Coontz piece:

A study released this year showed just how dependent we’ve become on marriage. Three sociologists at the University of Arizona and Duke University found that from 1985 to 2004 Americans reported a marked decline in the number of people with whom they discussed meaningful matters. People reported fewer close relationships with co-workers, extended family members, neighbors and friends. The only close relationship where more people said they discussed important matters in 2004 than in 1985 was marriage.

In fact, the number of people who depended totally on a spouse for important conversations, with no other person to turn to, almost doubled, to 9.4 percent from 5 percent. Not surprisingly, the number of people saying they didn’t have anyone in whom they confided nearly tripled.

The solution to this isolation is not to ramp up our emotional dependence on marriage. Until 100 years ago, most societies agreed that it was dangerously antisocial, even pathologically self-absorbed, to elevate marital affection and nuclear-family ties above commitments to neighbors, extended kin, civic duty and religion.

Read the whole thing here.

On Friday morning a patient told me that he liked to hire people who are in AA because he knows that they struggle with honesty, and take the subject seriously - and often know more first-hand about dishonesty than most.

So thanks to Assistant Village Idiot for noting a relevant piece by the always interesting Kling at TCS on the anthropological subject of "trust cues" in human relationships and especially in affiliative groups (tribes), That's Your Cue.

Are humans tribal? You bet they are. And it often makes good sense to be.

Trust cues are our ways of indicating that we are members of a group, or tribe, and that it is important for us to be a member in good standing. In a sense, my patient took AA "membership" as a trust cue, because he knows they talk about honesty all the time in AA.

My favorite example of a trust cue which is ceremonially acknowledged is the "made man" in the Mafia: the guys know they can fear and trust him because he has blood on his hands. A similar example might be admission to any exclusive club.

But trust cues aren't always rational or reliable. For example, I have a bias towards trusting the intentions of serious Christians but, as far as I know, serious Christians are as morally flawed as everyone else. I suppose I'd like to believe that we, like the AA "members," worry more about how we treat others.

Thus trust cues do not necessarily mean "trust" in a moral sense, but more "trust that we're on the same page;" that we view the world somewhat similarly, and/or that we share enough similar life experience to constitute some sort of group membership.

When I attend a psychoanalytic meeting, I know it's my "club:"  mere attendance indicates some fundamental interest in unconscious processes. When I go to my church, I know I'm with my "tribe:" we are all interested enough in Christ to show up. And, come to think about it - if you really want to see a trust cue festival, attend a Dartmouth alumni Christmastime cocktail party: you have never seen so much green conviviality since St. Patrick's Day in NYC.

What Kling does, in his discussion of Wade's book Before the Dawn, is to note the ways in which dogma (as opposed to truth) is used or abused to indicate group membership.

Wade says that the evolutionary value of trust cues is that they facilitate peaceful interactions among strangers. When I offer a trust cue, I am saying that even though we do not know one another, I am a member of a trustworthy group. I value my membership in that group, and I know that lying to or cheating another member of that group could cause me to be excommunicated from the group. Since you are also a member of the group, you can trust me not to lie to you or to cheat you.

However,

...political beliefs serve primarily as trust cues. For example, those who favor an increase in the minimum wage are sending trust cues to people on the Left, and those who oppose an increase in the minimum wage are sending trust cues to people on the Right.

The actual consequences of raising the minimum wage are rarely discussed. In other words, political debates often ignore what I call Type C arguments (from empiricism) and turn instead to type M arguments, which accuse one's opponent of belonging to an outcast group. The reason for this is that people are not trying to persuade each other rationally. Instead, they are using trust cues to indicate that failure to agree implies excommunication from the group.

It has been my view that the current fad of getting upset about global warming is a trust cue, and little more. What it actually proclaims is "I am virtuous and I care a lot, and I don't mind more government control over things." The science, and the real empirical debate, lies outside the cue structure. Assertion of tribal membership is what such political postures are all about.

Read Kling's piece here, and Asst. Village Idiot's comments here. Interesting stuff.

I discover, sometimes, that things about others which I detest are qualities of my own which I detest, reject, and attempt to disown by pinning them on others.

Although I am not a Borderline Personality, there is an element of projective identification in this. Whether in fantasy or in reality, we can mentally construct another person so as to contain, embody (or, if the person is in our personal lives, to even get them to enact) our own rejected demons. Then we can detest them or look down on them while preserving an illusionary and undeserved self-esteem.

I have learned to reflect on the qualities I seem to be most irritated by or contemptuous of in others and to do a little reality check to see whether it's more about my stuff than about theirs.

Do you find yourself doing this sometimes, as I do?

With half the world either on vacation, spaced out, "enjoying" family, skiing, lounging in the Caribbean over Mohitos and Rum Punches, or too busy digesting cookies to spare time for the intertubes, it seems like a good time to mix in some daily Dr. B. re-runs from our archives. 

This one, "A Good Spanking," is from 2007.

The proposed anti-spanking law in California has been much discussed, as here at Education Wonks. Also, Raven.The story has also been much mocked: Blame Bush notes that spanking can lead to things which are considered "disorders" in California, such as respect for authority, consideration of rules, self-discipline, and awareness of consequences.

There may be some shrinks who are opposed to corporal punishment, but I do not think that I know any. There are many situations for which I would recommend corporal punishment (eg ignoring a rule about playing in the street, or accidentally pointing a BB gun at somebody, or being sadistic with a sibling or a pet - for a few examples) and, in general, I think it is preferable to withdrawal of love or attention (ie, "time-outs," which I think are usually applied when the adult needs the break from the kid. That is, a "time-out" is a cop-out.).

In fact, I think schools ought to be able to administer corporal punishment too. I received my share, and not only did it not harm me - I think it helped me (in retrospect!). It "concentrates the mind," assists the memory, sets a firm limit, and demonstrates "tough love." A reasonable degree of anger is an essential accompaniment.

What I observe more than anything else is that defiant, obnoxious, or even "conduct disordered" kids - and sometimes just naughty kids, get sent to psychiatrists and social workers before anyone tries forceful discipline - as if growing up respectful and obedient were automatic. For many it is, but for many it is not.

Never forget that when a young adult messes with a drill sargent, watch out. When an adult messes with a cop, that adult will be taught a very firm physical lesson. When an adult breaks a serious rule, men without smiles with loaded guns will come and point them at your chest, throw you to the floor, cuff you, and lock you away in a small room with Bubba-With-No-Teeth who is big and strong and feeling lonely.

So a good whuppin', when needed, isn't really so bad. It beats humiliation by a long shot. When the rules of life are not internalized, they need to be enforced externally until they are - which for some people means never. Some fear is very useful in life to keep us out of trouble. We can be their friends later, after they grow up a bit.

Spare the rod and spoil the child. Do not listen to those who deliberately and sneakily try to conflate punishment with child abuse, and never let the government tell you how to raise your kids. In case you haven't noticed yet, the government is an idiot.

Related: Dr. Helen on kids who kill

Image: Boy being birched by teacher, no doubt deservedly, while other students observe. 1375.

A piece via Memorandum launched my brief rant about the noisy, Leftist segment of the women's movement.

Regardless of the moral issues around abortion, I have no interest in paying for your abortion. None. Nor for your IVF, your tummy tuck, your massages, aromatherapy, chiropractic adjustments, your birth control pills, or your nose jobs. If an insurance plan doesn't cover such things, too bad. The claim that insurance which does not pay for non-therapeutic abortions "harms women" is insane.

Grow up and pay for your own damn abortions, ladies - and for anything else medically-related that you elect to do which is therefore "elective."

Equating "liberation from oppression" with "wanting free stuff" is pathetic and retrogressive, replacing the good husband ideal of the past with a new sort of husband in government. Next thing you know, these women will be demanding that we buy them cars so they can drive to work.

That's not pride and confidence. That is infantile, and consistent with the worst stereotype of the weak, ditzy, incompetent female.

I believe that a man needs his good woman just as a woman needs her good man.

The moral of the story is that "movements," like non-profits - having acomplished their major goals, need to keep finding new things to do to maintain and justify their existence - and their paychecks. It is not grown-up for women - or anyone of any of the 5 or 10 or whatever "genders" - to want things on my nickel.

My apologies for bothering our readers with this on a cheery and snowy Christmas weekend. Now that I have that off my chest, we are getting ready to dress up fancy to head off to make the rounds of some Christmas parties and open houses.

Bring on the mountains of snow and the gallons of eggnog and the groaning boards! Modern women enjoy trying to meet life's challenges of all sorts, including those of excess snow and excess eggnog and excess calorie-filled goodies, as did the women of my Mom's generation. Strong women, never victimized, oppressed, or asking for pity.

And God bless our lonely military wives and Moms during Christmas. A tough job, but they can do it and need no pity and ask for none. Same thing goes for the guys whose wives are in the service.

Does that, or should that, exist as a medical diagnosis?

I doubt it, although the idea of diagnosis nowadays is rather arbitrary and designed mainly to complete insurance forms.

In light of Tiger's family problems, I have been hearing the term "sex addiction" used a lot by non-professionals and by some quasi-professionals. Rock star-types have endless temptations and opportunities for recreational sex. And so does any guy who doesn't mind going to massage parlors or titty bars.

It seems to me that pathologizing hedonistic behavior of any sort tends to diminish the fact of human choice - and moral choice. We primates are wired for sexual adventurism, but also wired for restraint and for considerate behavior.

What do you think? How many of our guy readers could resist lovely young women constantly throwing themselves at them, and licking their ear?

One interesting piece of data:

The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

Lots more cheerful facts about divorce here.

I said good-bye to a fellow I have worked with on and off for over 15 years yesterday.

His wife died last winter, and he has finally decided to move to Florida to live with one of his daughter's families. Lonely. He is in his 80s. Most of his old pals in town that he worked with, grew up with, and worshipped with are dead. A sad farewell for both of us. He gave me a big bear hug. He was never a regular psychotherapy patient, but an irregularly-regular patient when things got tough.

Strong guys are not afraid of getting help when they need it.

I nursed him through panic attacks (cured them easily with medicine), a major depression after his heart attack, a major depression after the death of his wife, the suicide of one of his daughters. In the process, I learned a lot about his life. A lot about life.  It is my privilege to learn a lot about life through people's lives. Their stories enrich mine.

Today, he reminisced about his troop ship trip home from England after having been a tail-gunner - a teenager - for a couple of years in WW2 in Italy and France, and finally in Germany. He was based in Dijon for a while. "We got the news about FDR's death on the ship. Some liked him, some hated him, but he was our boss. Ship was half-filled with guys like me headed for furlough, and half-full of POWs. Why, at that point in the war, they were bringing German POWs to the US I have no idea, but the military never makes sense. That's a given when you're in the service. For my furlough, they took me from New York to Massachusetts to Miami to New Jersey before I could get home to Massachusetts. After my month furlough in the local pub, I had to spend three months down in New Jersey to get enough points to qualify for discharge."

"Doing what?" I asked. "Basically, nothing," he said. "They just had to make us wait out our time. The action then was mopping up in the Pacific." He said "It feels so long ago now that it's like another life."

He is a retired mailman who remembers horse-drawn fire trucks, played trumpet in the Volunteer Fire Department marching band for 50 years, and still sings in his RC choir and delivers food to the elderly. "I'm older than most of the people I deliver to." He was the guy who told me that flak on an airplane sounds like "a bucket of gravel being dumped on the fuselage. You get used to it after a while. We all assumed we would die, and got used to that too."

An American fellow to the bone, and one of the finest, humblest, most giving and unselfish people I have ever known. He dedicated his life, and especially his retirement, to being a good companion and to doing unto others in whatever ways he could.

Long life to you, friend, and God bless.

While lesbian feminista Democrat Camille Paglia admires Pelosi's "grittiness" and "mettle" (but detests what Pelosi has produced. BTW, we like Paglia a lot. She is the kind of person it is pleasant and interesting to disagree with, and we appreciate grit in women), Dr. Laura has another view of the world at home: The Evolution of ‘Feminism' Saddens Me. One quote:

...it’s pretty easy to make men happy.

It is remarkable that each and every one of the women who has
called my show complaining about her husband, and who was then asked
the question, "Would you want to come home to you?" has said,
haltingly, no. There it is. When women disdain masculinity and their
own femininity, all is lost for the family.

These sorts of discussions, however interesting at times, are a bit off the point. Men need to be gentle sometimes, and women need to be tough sometimes. Both obviously have these capacities. However, I think that if a woman wants to have a happy marriage she would do well to at least give Dr. Laura a listen. She understands men pretty well, and likes them for what they are.

I have been thinking about the wishes we have about ourselves, and about how we deal with our disappointments in ourselves and our perceived shortcomings.

Here are some of the things I have heard from people:

I wish I were...

taller
shorter
more beautiful and sexy
stronger
more handsome
richer
blonde
blue-eyed
green-eyed
more outgoing
more inner-directed
more charismatic
a better athlete
smarter
better at math
more popular
more disciplined
less fearful
better at memorization
better at focusing
less neurotic
more confident
more courageous
more authoritative
skinnier
able to relax
more energetic
more knowledgeable
less naive
less cynical
less of a manipulator
more interesting
less of an asshole
less self-centered
more self-interested
more adventurous
less reckless and impulsive
less boring
darker-skinned
lighter-skinned
bigger
smaller
bigger-breasted
smaller-breasted
bigger-penised
quicker to orgasm (women)
slower to orgasm (men)
younger
bigger-assed
smaller-assed
better at (fill in the blank)

The list could go on and on. It is not human to be too pleased with oneself unless one is delusional on some level. God, and our Moms, and Mr. Rogers might like us just as we are, but we generally do not.

Why would we? Love would not be as special, as miraculous, otherwise.

What would the world be like if we could all design ourselves - besides being filled with rich 6'3" guys with 3-foot johnsons and rich 5'6" skinny blondes with perfect - but generously so - boobs? All with 160 IQs and charming personalities.

I have been pondering a post on the topic of sex and male and female sex drives for a while -and what people do with those drives, but what I want to say has not crystallized for me yet.

In the meantime, our friend Villainous has a thoughtful piece on the subject: Should women withhold sex?