MR DARCY'S DAUGHTERS

All who know me, know me as a Jane Austen fan. Thus, while shopping at Costco one day I found a series of four books by Elizabeth Aston, (jacket notes: Elizabeth Aston is a passionate Jane Austen fan who studied with Austen biographer Lord David Cecil of Oxford. ) As Pride and Prejudice is tops on my list of feel-good books to read, I bought a paper-back copy of Mr. Darcy's Daughters, The Exploits and Adventures of Miss Alethea Darcy. The True Darcy Spirit, and The Second Mrs Darcy.

Two-thirds through the first book, it is clear this sequel to Pride and Prejudice was not written by Jane Austen though well researched as to the times, 1818. One is listening to a story with too many characters so that one has to stretch one's mind to remember them there. Aston has the reader looking through a keyhole.

Nevertheless, for those who can stand to see a beloved author imitated with a brand new fantasy of what has happened to our hero and heroine of Pride and Prejudice, it is pleasant reading. I would recommend it to all Austen fans if they don't mind shifting gears in their heads for the read.

Amusingly, the two reviews on the back cover are written by Julia Barrett, author of Jane Austen's Charlotte (a biography of Austen's most beloved sister) and Joan Aiken, author of Jane Fairfax (a character in the Austen book, EMMA).

The book captures the essence of the period in upper class society in London, at that period, descriptively and clearly. It does not capture the essence of the people as well as Austen seemed to have done in her writings, so at times the shift seems abrupt. Yet, at no time should a reader find themselves bored. I am certainly not. I recommend it to Austen fans as, though not the original, a fairly realistic and innovative knock-off.

AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH

Wikipedia defines revenge: “Revenge (also vengeance, retribution, or vendetta amongst others) consists primarily of retaliation against a person or group in response to a perceived wrongdoing. Although many aspects of revenge resemble or echo the concept of justice, revenge usually has a more injurious than harmonious goal. The goal of revenge usually consists of forcing the perceived wrongdoer to suffer the same pain that was originally inflicted.”

During my many years of psychotherapeutic practice; I have occasionally met someone who cannot move beyond the wish to cause pain to the person they see as having ‘rejected’ them. Intelligent people who normally have access to logic and can change their minds when shown new facts are unable to move from the sense of pain at the rejection. They realize that hurting the presumed injurer will not take away their hurt but confess it will make them feel better. They can accept, in theory, that the offender may have had to put boundaries on the relationship for their own needs, to avoid stress, and that they may have had no intent to injure but simply to save self. However, they may still not be able to move beyond their own sense of rejection....

From a blogger who writes as The Last Psychiatrist : “Narcissistic injuries have nothing to do with sadness. They are always and only about rage. The narcissist says, "I exist." A narcissistic injury is you showing him that he does not exist in your life”….” Nor am I suggesting this isn't "treatable"-- anyone can change. It may not be easy, but it is always possible. And I also do not mean to imply that all narcissists will kill everyone who injures them. The point is rage. They may never act on it, or they may break a window, or attempt suicide, etc.”

This also is contained in the notion of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth from the Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi was King of Babylon, 1792-1750BC. The code survives today in the Akkadian language. Used in the Bible, Matthew 5:38 (King James Version): It may seem odd that some people behave in this way today since these sources are archaic. However, if one examines the behavior closely, it is a response to a narcissistic injury in someone who would not fit the DSM-V criteria for narcissistic personality disorder. I do not mean to write a psychological treatise on this subject here but would welcome responses from people who may have thoughts on their own or someone else’s behavior that fits this profile.

The passage from self-absorption to altruistic joy can be a short trip or a trip that never happens. Daniel Goleman, a psychologist asks the question, “Why aren’t we all good Samaritans?” It is our empathy that separates us from being sociopaths. There is zero correlation between empathy and those who are able to turn that part of ourselves off. More worrisome are those for whom pity is never turned on.

These, though they believe the logic that the other party may have had no intent to injure, that they will be no less ‘rejected’ after inflicting pain they may even entertain it will only reinforce the decision of the person who inflicted the initial separation that the cut off was a necessary one ,

Thus, it is my belief that Bush allowed himself to go to war with Iraq on similar logic. The narcissistic injury he identified through his father, was not based on logic but on revenge. It didn’t matter how many people were killed, maimed or injured of Americans or foreigners, his personal needs took

SENATOR CLINTON WINS PENNSYLVANIA

Hillary Clinton got a 10 point win! Despite the biased talking heads on TV who were all over the charts with their predictions of her failure. Interestingly Pat Buchanan was the closest. He had predicted she would win by 6 to 12 points. This link will not work for long, probably, but it is good to see her be able to be on the winning side

This link may not be the same for long, but her site is worth a look .

CNN reports with a happy Hillary Clinton's pictured face. A lovely sight for those Democrats who believe she is better prepared to be the President at this horrendous time of ruin to which our current Administration has brought us.

The fat lady has not yet sung.......

SNIFFER DOG CLONING

Korea has cloned sniffer dogs and raised the percentage rate of acceptable and competent sniffers. This apparently speeds up the process of finding dogs that have the right sniffers, just like computer dating helps people find their well-matched life partner.

Nightclubs in County Down, Ireland, are putting sniffer dogs on the doors of nightclubs to help keep drugs out. They seem to have sniffing dogs in airports that will sniff out sandwiches that people might illegally bring into the country off the plane. Does the country have its priorities straight? Should more sniffer dogs be at the Mexican and Canadian borders? Instead of a 26 foot high wall, maybe the could have a dog run. They can tie up some pit bulls between the sniffers? Of course there will have to be a few gun-toting DEA agents accompanying them. The dogs will also have to be trained to sniff out the endangered animals, who have no passport, who must be let through to keep their diminishing populations up by adding to an international sperm exchange as the animals roam between the US and Mexico or Canada. Animal protectors are against the wall because it stops this ability of the colonies of animals to maintain themselves due too much inbreeding.

Northern Island is using sniffer dogs in prisons. Isn't that a bit like letting the fox guard the hen house? Do many drugs get into prisons that the staff don't know about or get their cut from? Maybe I'm misinformed. I don't hang around prisons very often. One woman who hid drugs in her bra along with coffee, pepper, and Vick's Vapo-Rub was sniffed out (reported in the Canine Nation).

And for laughs, the stupidity of people who bring drugs to a drug seminar.

MEN WITH SMALL, JOURNALIST COHONES

Eric Boehlert wrote on Chris Matthews for Media Matters for America. His historic overview validated the feelings many of us have about the man towards whom former admiration has turned to complete dislike and disrespect. When he used to have Mike Barnicle replace him, or as a guest, I thought it was only Barnicle who was misogynistic. However, it is clear that they both are so. Boehlert reminds us that is was Matthews quoted in the Boehlert article: "It's just that the Times politely chose to ignore them. So readers still probably have no idea that Matthews:

• featured a Photoshopped image of Clinton sporting "She Devil" horns while discussing Republican efforts to demonize her;

• repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched," the scheming, heartless character from the mental hospital drama One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest;

• described her laugh as a "cackle," suggested she was "anti-male," "witchy," and was on a "short ... leash";

• referred to Clinton as "Madame Defarge" and described male politicians who endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus";

• compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser," wondered whether she was "a convincing mom," referred to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look" she supposedly gives people;

• claimed that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard."

Nothing like that has been said about any of the Republican women. Instead he has done nothing but praise Kay Bailey Hutchinson, whom I hear as an echo to Republican policies for the past eight years. Does that suggest that only Democrat women are frightening because they have original thoughts, because they are not frightened and cow-towing to the men, because they are strong enough to withstand the demeaning and lying comments made by the men?

Long enough ago that most voters today would not remember, Freud used to describe all women as having 'penis envy'. The poor Victorian man was quite mistaken and feminists wrote that it was not 'penis envy' but 'penis pity', a concept that only resulted in pornography growing in sales with video being easy to market, and later through the Internet, of men getting their jollies by watching women being totally subjugated and demeaned in front of their eyes. It obviously served as sublimation to the shaky sense of masculinity in so many men who feared dealing with women gaining ground in voice and actions.
Domestic violence against women is a disturbingly common occurrence in the United States. There are still cultural factors at work as immigrants from less modern countries arrive here with less advanced views on equality of women.

Behavior therapy introduced a focus on the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness. However, success of women blinds many men to that differentiation. Any woman with a strong voice and action is seen as aggressive, while many men continue under the delusion that women are their chattel, though the law changed that status many decades ago. Remnants of the male struggle to hold onto that position is evident in what the predominantly male law enforcers have ignored for a hundred years here in the United States. The condescension in their notion that women are invited into Heaven by their satisfied husbands is evident in their misogynistic community.

Phyllis Schlafly led an conflicted movement to prevent the Equal Rights Amendment. She wanted women to hold onto their traditional roles and be a stay-at-home-Moms to raise their children. Men seemed to want that as well but the economy became such that many women found it necessary to work outside the home. Men still wanted the status quo and do nothing but go to work, come home to a cooked meal, do no housework, have little responsibility for child care, and the wives, working a full-time job outside the home, do everything else they had always done. For those kind husbands who assisted, it was said they 'helped' their wives with the wife's work. Young couples of today might find that either sad or amusing, since couples have evolved to a much more shared responsibility in their marriage partnership and childrearing.

Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and all the other misogynists who control the airwaves are a dying breed. They will soon find out that the media might still be controlled as the masses don't have the time to spend to search for the truth, but it will reach them through satire, cartoons, comic strips, and comedy. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the writers of South Park, and others are reaching a larger audience than the major 'news' channels and are far more trustworthy and believable because they usually demonstrate with actual video clips, previously aired by traditional media, the lies politicians are telling and later recounting and waffling about.

Hopefully, in a few years these 'journalists' will stop saying they 'love' women just as they might say they' love' their pets.

INVASION OF COMPUTERS

What is it that makes companies think they can drop tracking cookies on your computer without your permission? Where is the FCC? Where are the people who are supposed to be watching this stuff and protecting our right, as citizens, to privacy in our homes? Where are the people who started the Internet with the goal of keeping it free?

A week ago I cleaned my computer thoroughly of all unwanted stuff. Today I ran an AVG scan and it turned up 183 tracking programs and tracking cookies that count what I have looked at and where I have gone on the Internet and then report to their home base. How am I to benefit from this? Presumably they will still want what I had looked at and see that I am deluged with ads from services and products I want. I makes me wonder why it is thought to benefit me. When I want something from the Internet I go to Google and look until I find what I want. If I have already purchased it, will these spies know that I no longer want it or will I get ads for the type of product I have already bought?

Is spying on people what has replaced using a marketing brain? Is there something wrong with asking people directly what they want? Why doesn't someone build a website actually be superfluous since a person can find almost anything within a few minutes from Google and/or other search engines already, though it would certainly be more ethical than what we have now.