Is Trump a Sociopath?

At our Sabbath lunch table yesterday, one of my guests asked me pointedly, "Given your expertise as a psychologist, would you say Donald Trump is a sociopath?"

I can't give a professional diagnosis, but from his public appearances and the way he continuously makes inflamatory (perhaps racist, perhaps misogynistic) statements, you'd have to wonder. Here's a list of sociopathological characteristics useful in evaluating Trump*:

• Superficial charm and good intelligence
• Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
• Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations
• Unreliability
• Untruthfulness and insincerity
• Lack of remorse and shame
• Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
• Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
• Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
• General poverty in major affective reactions
• Specific loss of insight
• Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
• Fantastic and uninviting behavior with alcohol and sometimes without
• Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated
• Failure to follow any life plan

You can judge for yourself, but I do know that politically, Trump is dysfunctional and self-destructive. How so? He undermines his own progress by needlessly going on the offensive (literally).

Out of the blue, weeks after his last TV debate with Megyn Kelly, he decided to Tweet another hit on the Fox News anchor, adding to his collection of childish names, including "sick," "overrated," "unwatchable," and "crazy."

He got in trouble previously for snarky comments about former rival Carly Fiorina's looks ("Look at that face. Can you imagine that as the face of our next President?"). Then he went after Heidi Cruz, threatening to "spill the beans" about her, and then publishing an unflattering photo with a glamour shot of his wife, a former-model.

Next comes a front-page Enquirer banner story that blared, "It's over for Pervy Ted! Their

Shocking Claims--Cruz's Five Secret Mistresses!" Cruz quickly called the story "trash" and blamed Trump's "henchmen." (Trump denied association to the Enquirer story, adding, "while they were right about OJ Simpson, John Edwards and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin' Ted Cruz.")

How does this wallowing in the muck help Trump? Even his base must question the sanity of their candidate's uncontrollable tweets. At at time when Trump most needs to look credibly Presidential, he undermines any gains with his impulsive, aggressive jabs. Trump's success at AIPAC with a speech by his son-in-law Jered Kushner (Trump's only teleprompter-read presentation) was immediately undone by his renewed sleazy attacks.

This is dysfunction: Working to set yourself up for success and then undermining your own efforts.

My husband made an excellent observation: Trump wants to win, but he doesn't want to govern. It's a conflict that causes him to self-sabotage.

If he really wanted to win, he wouldn't shoot himself in the foot (reminds me of his comment "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"). If indeed he's not stupid, and I am increasingly unsure about that, he would see that to win, he must widen his support, not endanger it.

He needs to prove his grasp of domestic and international issues, leading the military, and working with those who oppose him. Instead, he's mired in cutting comments, personal lawsuits and scandals, and general assurances that we needn't know specifics because, believe him, his solutions will be great and brilliant. His pattern is to foment criticism, and then lash out with an even harsher attack.

This penchant for self-destruction is now leaving even those who once admired his chutzpah astonished. There's no point in crudely attacking a fellow Republican, especially if Trump has confidence (as he often asserts) that he'll earn nomination. Trump has lowered the campaign to where parents now must shield their children from the political process.

A new Bloomberg poll taken March 18-22 finds Trump's net favorability rating just 29%; his net unfavorable is 68%. Hillary's favorable is 44% and her unfavorable 53%. In a contest between the two, who wins?

John Kasich: I think, therefore I can

Therefore, I repeat my post of two weeks ago: a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary. At this point, Republicans desperately need a candidate who can attract both Hillary haters and Trump disdainers. Cruz is also disliked, with unfavorables at 55% and favorables just 32%. Kasich seems too far from getting the nod, but his favorability, according to the same Bloomberg poll, is 46%, higher than Hillary's, and his unfavorability is lower than hers, at just 32%. He's actually the best-liked of the lot.

I find Kasich a bit creepy, but I do admire that he refused to join the Trump mud-slinging, and focuses on policies and experience. He might be the best bet to save the GOP, and the nation, from spiraling disaster.

We certainly cannot afford to have a sociopath for President.

* Characteristics of a sociopath from Thomas, M.E., "How to Spot a Sociopath," Psychology Today, May 7, 2013.

You support Trump? Here's my Reply

Donald Trump. It's not easy being orange.

Recently someone I respect sent me a newsy email in which he casually mentioned that he supported Trump.

It was as if a giant elephant just fell into the room. "How could you possibly support Trump?" I asked, agog.

 I do try to understand; I read articles with quotes from Trumpites, and they say the GOP front-runner expresses their anger, or he says what they're thinking, or he's politically incorrect and will shake everything up, or he's a deal-maker and running the country is about deals.

Few Trumpsters say they support him because they like his policies, or they revere his upstanding character, or for his record in international relations, domestic lawmaking, handling crises or joining together opposing groups.

Far from uniting us, as he claims he'll do, feelings about Trump are polarizing Americans, individually, and in small and large groups. Politics' divisiveness is impinging on our lives and causing depression. And speaking of psychoses,  I cannot understand how Ben Carson endorsed him, after Trump called out Carson's "psychological disease," and suggested he's a "child molester" and a “sick puppy.” (Dr. Carson in his endorsement said there are "two Donald Trumps." Is that the doctor's diagnosis of schizophrenia?)

 I am flummoxed that Chris Christie endorsed him so shortly after asserting Trump "did not have the temperament" for the presidency.

It's true that a president needs tact. Trump demonstrates little understanding of the delicacy of diplomacy in any context. And were he to have access to nuclear bombs and armies, it could mean literally the end of the world. Those stakes are too high.

Trump may be right that he "could shoot someone without losing voters." Thousands of Trump University students and the New York Attorney General are actively suing, claiming enrollees were misled into a fraudulent educational experience. Doesn't matter, Trumpers know it's fine, since Donald shrugged it off on TV.

If he were honest in and about his business dealings, I wouldn't care that some of his endeavors failed. Much more important to presidential success is proven ability to work in the milieu of Washington. The culture and protocol of national politics will not crumble, even if a brazen president wills it. Thousands of people have built careers within a reliable web of agreements and relationships, and will not scrap their investments in Washington's political structure.

Trump can never win the presidency because the majority of voters, even voters and politicos in his own party, disdain him. Not just because he's an arrogant bully (though he is) but mainly because he is dangerously unpredictable. We don’t know what he plans to do, and if he hints at something in response to a journalist's questioning, he’s only too willing to totally change it, even on the same day, if his feelings change.

Every debate and speech Trump makes teaches us how he operates, and that is, Donald Trump wings it. He says what he feels at the time, unplanned. His speeches are off the cuff; his responses to charges are counter-attacks, often ad hominem.

And that teaches us, the American people, that his policies and messages to dignitaries will be winged, too. What Donald feels, Donald says—until he changes his mind and undoes it.

 

NY Times pic of Donald Trump at his University

The one thing to look for in a leader is long-term perspective. Someone who doesn’t wing it, but looks far into the future at potential ramifications of short-term steps, toward a lofty, worthwhile goal. Trump has no aspiration to a virtuous future more moral or dignified than the kind of ambiance he fosters now. He has no affinity for any religion, and suspicious enmity toward Muslims. He only mentions God when trying to win over preachers and congregations.

 When someone peppers his comments with “Believe me,” you know you can’t. When someone criticizes him, Donald automatically goes on the offensive with something more rude and outrageous than what was lobbed at him.

There is one commonality in the responses of Trump admirers--they're based on emotions. If you're angry, if you're resentful, if you feel threatened by immigrants who could take your job, or who change the character of your neighborhood, you're driven by powerful emotions. And seldom can logic dissuade you.

I'm a psychologist, and this principle applies to behavior in every realm, marriages, work, and  friendships: Emotions trump logic. I've been using that phrase for decades before Donald Trump made it so apropos.

Donald Trump fires up emotions, but we should not be led by emotions. The central Jewish prayer "the Shma" warns not to follow your heart, lest you're lured away from duty and nobility. Because emotions are compelling, my logical arguments probably won't sway my emailing friend away from Trump. But we risk severe peril if we collectively succumb to emotion and eschew the calm pursuit of civility in a long-term context.

Why Tech Companies Can't Keep Good Women Employees

Nathalie Miller pitches Doxa to a Venture Capitalist

My son recently got a job in development at a Tech firm, and one of the many praises he has for the company, SmartSheet, is that half of its staff are men and half women.

"That's not the usual composition in a tech company," he adds, and indeed, a story on the cover of the New York Times Business section by Claire Cain Miller bears him out, noting that "30 percent of employees at big tech companies including Google, Facebook and Apple are women..."

The question is, "Why?" The NY Times story implies why, but you'll never find the answer stated explicitly, because it's completely politically incorrect--though hardly a secret.

The reason is that women choose to divert attention to their families.

Nathalie Miller, now 34, went on the fast track to career success. Raised in Berkeley, California, she got a degree from Harvard, then moved to VietNam (she's of Vietnamese and European descent), starting a micro-finance nonprofit.

Returning to the US in 2013, she signed on as employee number 20 with Instacart, a grocery-delivery start-up, and watched it expand to 120 employees and 4,000 contractors within a year.

Then "a new employee told her that he had ranked the hottest women at the company, and she was No. 1. She reported the comment to managers, and the employee was fired the next day," reports the NY Times piece.

This brought interest in matching female candidates with pro-women high-tech openings, leading her to leave Instacart, partner with an engineer, and create Doxa, a site that would collect data on companies, give job seekers online personality tests, and facilitate hiring. She hoped to increase awareness of issues important to women by including info on companies' policies.

She built the company to "820 active users and 300 companies on a waiting list to be included," and so sought money to expand. About then she discovered that she and her husband were expecting their first child. She "plotted strategy," and planned to mention her impending parenthood only on a second meeting with potential investors, and then say "...I'm married to a man who will be a primary caregiver, and this is no different from investing in a man whose wife is pregnant."

Nathalie Miller worked diligently to hone her pitch, refining her content and look with a mentor. She met with more than 40 venture capitalists, one a Ms. Yuan of Cowboy Ventures, who said of the software, "It enables companies to be responsive: 'Let's get a maternity policy because we don't want to be up on your platform without that.'" Still, none she approached chose to fund Doxa, and when her engineer partner got greater responsibility at this day job, Ms. Miller was faced with finding a new technical expert. 

The article details issues facing women in Silicon Valley, including differences in men's and women's presentation styles, and the way women are received by male execs and co-workers. It relates the difficulties of a start-up in the competitive tech world to the problems encountered by Doxa.

 Ultimately, however, Nathalie Miller chose another worthwhile path: motherhood.

"Ms. Miller's plan was to take a month off and get back to work," explains the NY Times story. "Then...she gave birth to a girl, Zadie Mai, and changed her mind. 'I feel a mixture of intense love and protectiveness,' she said. 'I want to hang out with the baby forever. There are my real physical needs and the physical dependence of the baby, all this stuff I didn't expect to be so consuming.'

...She decided to take at least six months off, doing some work from home after three or four months," the article notes. "Her husband, meanwhile, had found a full-time job in advertising."

Yep. The setting might now be Silicon Valley, but the same switch of ambition happened to a generation before the millennials. Feminist baby boomers (like me), took advantage of new openings in a raft of fields, and yet found themselves pairing up, responding to biology and, when their babies came on the scene, falling in love. Whether it's hormones, or simply gaining the perspective that raising your own child is valuable and rewarding, women often opt out of promising careers at a certain stage. Is this really a surprise? Or a problem?

Companies may find that they can populate their tech staffs with competent, sharp women right out of college, who serve them eagerly and well for several years and then realize they've "been there, done that." These women know they've got a window of time to have children and raise families, and prefer to fully participate in that (just as they fully embraced their tech jobs) rather than take a month or even a few and then leave their babies in day care or with a nanny.

It's ironic that Nathalie Miller, whose start-up aimed to place women in responsible roles in companies sensitive to women's needs, stepped away from her own such position, lured by the sweet coos of her baby--but it's also laudable and not unusual. Silicon Valley and Seattle, where I live, are filled with growing tech companies snapping up capable college grads, but most of their hires aren't women in the mothering phase (who often carve out part-time or work-from-home alternatives), or older males or females.

I'll be interested to see the proportion of tech companies who keep their women employees throughout long careers. But I expect that many women launched in upward trajectories in these demanding enterprises will be attracted to a pause, the kind that brings a payoff far exceeding dollars and cents.

Photo credits: Top, Jason Henry for the New York Times

Why A Vote for Trump is a Vote for Hillary

Results from the Nevada GOP caucuses show Donald Trump with more than 45%, nearly twice the percentage vote of each of his runner-up rivals, Marco Rubio (24%) and Ted Cruz (21%).

I do not understand how anyone could entrust our nation's future to one whose vocabulary consists of superlatives and digs.

My husband is wrapping up writing a book on Providence in American history with a chapter on Abraham Lincoln. Trump and Lincoln--polar opposites in their characters and their perspectives of the presidency. I only wish we could produce a Lincoln-esque candidate with the humility to deferentially serve God and the United States people, driven and able to absorb the intricacies of history, international relations and domestic policy.

Instead,GOP front-runner Donald Trump has demonstrated expertise in braggadocio. He exclaims in speeches that he did very well in school, is rich, very rich, and plans to use The Art of the Deal as his presidential guidebook. He emblazons his name in two-story letters on skyscrapers. He blithely insults women, Mexicans and his fellow candidates.

 Jimmy Kimmel capsulized the Trump approach in a Dr. Seuss book parody that he read on-air to the approving real Donald.



Most voters share my incredulity with this Trump phenomenon. A January Gallup poll found 60% of Americans view Donald Trump unfavorably. (The same poll found 52% viewed Hillary unfavorably.) Who are these people supporting Trump? How come I've never met any?

But it's numbers that explain why a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary: Even with her 52% unfavorable rating, Mrs. Clinton is amassing enough delegate votes to win the Democratic nomination. People who like Bernie just haven't come through in the primaries and caucuses--at the moment Hillary's sewn up 503 delegates, while Bernie earned a paltry 70. Apparently promising free stuff--like free college tuition, free preschool, and free medical care--isn't bringing in the delegates.

So, as Hillary's totals rise, Bernie's support weakens, and we can assume she'll be the Democratic nominee, just as everyone always said.

If Republicans divide on the other candidates and propel The Donald to nomination, his negatives "trump" Hillary's. More people are offended by Donald's racist-sounding anti-immigrant rants and his rudeness to Meghan Kelly than love his unplanned bursts of feeling and optimism. So, if he's the Republican nominee, the party shrivels as members defect and Independents cast their votes for the more predictable, and therefore least dangerous of the two offerings.

It's great fun to watch debates where the frowning Comb-over King lets loose his assurances we'll be the best country and fix everything. But when it comes down to our safety and the delicate diplomacy needed in this fragile world, it's clear Americans just don't want an apprentice.

"Inequality" has nothing to do with divorce. But personal behavior does.

Sen. Rubio: Marriage is a route out of poverty

So, I'm writing a book on divorce. Actually, it's on why you should NOT divorce. Therefore I collect articles on the subject, and one I was just filing was from last week's New York Times, titled "Marriage, Poverty and the Political Divide."

The piece suggests that economic inequality works against marriage. It discounts Sen. Marco Rubio's assertion that marriage can lift parents and children from poverty.

But it doesn't get to the point--that the values of marriage shrink poverty rates, and it takes personal behavioral choices, not scrapping "inequality" with legal and policy change, to both support marriage and curb poverty. 

Sen. Rubio bases this pro-marriage remark on a Heritage Foundation report showing that 71% of families in poverty are headed by unmarried individuals. Of those who are not poor, 73% are headed by married couples. Married people are better off financially.

Makes sense. Certainly a couple pulling together can bring in more income than a single parent, and make what they have go further. Stay-at-home parents contribute by saving on day care and providing other services that make the family function.

One would hope that an absent parent would contribute to his child's support. The trouble is, among the poor, this is infrequently the case. In 2011, only half of all custodial parents had a child support agreement. Those with child support agreements actually received only 62% of what they were due. Of all custodial parents receiving child support, 24% were in poverty. Thirty percent of custodial mothers live below the poverty line.

So how does inequality shape a couple's future together?  How does the fact someone else earns a lot more than you do harm your marriage? Not clear. 

Writer Andrew L. Yarrow's article claims "Poorer Americans already aspire to marriage at similar or higher rates than their higher-income counterparts, according to a 2012 UCLA study. But when they do marry, their marriages are much more likely to end in divorce."

The piece neglects to mention that divorce not only correlates with poverty but also with education of the partners. The more education partners have, the more likely a couple will stay together, finds the Heritage Foundation.

And of course education is highly correlated with income. In other words, those with the tenacity and ability to make it through college or advanced degrees more often have the tenacity and ability to both earn more money and form an enduring marriage. 

This isn't sinister "inequality,"a societal ill to be corrected by policy-makers. This is simple variation among individuals. Certain personal abilities, values and behaviors promote certain outcomes. It's less a governmental problem than a personal problem, a values and behavioral problem. Individuals who exhibit characteristics that promote happy marriage can much more often sustain happy marriages.

The term "inequality" implies that something's askew, that everyone would have the same positive outcomes were it not for unfairness. Look at how the poor scramble to survive, while the rich buy $5,000 designer purses! If you believe that all individuals begin with the same potential, it follows that only factors imposed by luck or malice stand in anyone's way. And therefore laws and policies should remove those barriers. But if you look around, you notice that humans were not created with the same potentials, though we rightly offer everyone the same opportunities to maximize the potentials they have.

"Marriage is far from the magic bullet to end poverty that some conservatives claim," says Melissa Boteach of the Center for American Progress in the Times piece.

Nobody says it's magic, but being in a marriage is one of those opportunities that allows us to maximize our best selves. Says W. Bradford Wilcox of the National Marriage Project,"Americans are more likely to realize the American dream if they get and stay married, and grow up in communities where marriage is stronger. Marriage fosters saving, facilitates economies of scale and encourages stability and family life, all things that are good for the average American's pocketbook."

In other words, the same values that support marriage support financial success. So it seems Sen. Rubio is right--a shortcut out of poverty could be living the commitment and values marriage requires. 

Decluttering: Life-Changing Magic for homes and the Presidential Race

Donald Trump sparks joy

Yes, I'm one of the millions who read every word of Marie Kondo's "method" for home decluttering, The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up. Tidy is one thing; pitching everything that doesn't send a thrill up your leg--her tack--is quite another.

Ms. Kondo hails from Japan, a place where tiny homes are measured by the size of sleeping mats. She offers an anecdote about a client who lives in a 7-mat apartment. Not much room to keep stuff.

To use her method, you'd gather categories of possessions together, and handle each item in the pile to discover if it "sparks joy." I have breakfronts and closets filled with items that spark joy.

    When Ms. Kondo suggests that readers rid themselves of treasured souvenirs and mementos, the difference in our cultures becomes apparent. You'd think that in a land of ancestor-worship (Ms. Kondo notes she volunteered at a Shinto shrine), people would be sentimental about objects connecting them to the past. No; throw away the notes from your college class, playbills, ticket stubs and old photos.

 Ruthlessly purge your closet for clothes seldom-worn or less-than-optimally flattering--roomy Saturday pants and comfy sleep-shirts included. And when you've proudly filled bags and bags of items to discard (she calls them "garbage" though you're supposed to thank each for its service before dumping), you're to fold what's left in origami squares, standing your shirts, socks and pants on end in rows in your drawers.

That this has brought the 31-year-old author millions of fans, surprises me. That she's followed it up with another book does not. In New York last week on promotion, she earned a New York Times story that noted the KonMari Method has sparked a backlash, including a book called "The Life-Changing Magic of Not Giving a (expletive)."

Ms. Kondo's new book, called Spark Joy, offers detailed diagrams for clothes-folding. Given that her quick-read first book explains her entire home-order program, this second volume merely elaborates.

However, there are grander lessons to learn here.

Marie Kondo signs her new book, in New York Times photo

The untidy field of presidential candidates needs some winnowing. The trouble is that Donald Trump sparks joy. He's the candidate people had in their living rooms saying "You're fired!", and holds the huuuge name blaring from the tops of conspicuous, fancy buildings.  Part of his hair is orange; the part that falls into his face. The rest is a shade of platinum blond, a combination that grabs viewers' eyes in perpetual query. His permanent frown and bugle lips make people smile.

The fact Donald Trump is unrehearsed, unfettered and unbothered by his lack of deep understanding of world issues adds to his appeal. He sparks joy in audacity; some of his earlier sexist and racist comments (ask Megyn Kelley) were such shockers that fans just can't wait for his next offenses--all of which are eagerly excused.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders sparks joy. He promises to provide for everyone from college students who get free tuition to construction workers earning some of the $1 trillion over 5 years he'd pay for roads and bridges  He sparks joy by offering free universal preschool and child care, $5.5 billion for a youth jobs program, mandating employers give twelve weeks' paid family and medical leave, government health care for all, and a $15 minimum wage by 2020.

 Joy! Joy! The 1% have plenty of wealth to cover it all; Bernie thinks they ought to pay their fair share. Right now, the top one percent--who are, after all, one percent of US taxpayers--pay nearly HALF the taxes collected (according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, reported by CNBC). Why not make them pay a lot more to help so many? They have more than they need.

Sparking joy is the criterion far too many Americans seem to embrace. But as primaries and party conventions approach, our political scene needs some decluttering. Using more serious criteria than for ditching tchotchkes.

How about sparking national security? Didn't the terrorism in San Bernardino get anyone's attention? Illegal immigration was not the issue when Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik fired 150 rounds from five guns into a holiday party, killing 14 and wounding 22. Lucky their three wired pipe bombs didn't detonate.

Why isn't national security the primary issue? What good is a $15 minimum wage when shopping malls are deserted due to fear of "soft target" attacks? 

 Republicans seem transfixed by a racist-sounding threat from Hispanics dashing across the US border. Do you really think our most concerning danger is from Mexicans Trump wants to stop with a huuuuge wall? Truth is, of the 11 million estimated illegal immigrants in the US, 5.6 million are from Mexico, a drop from the 6.7 million here in 2007, when no wall was constructed. What reduced the number of illegals? Fewer economic opportunities

Bernie Sanders, sparking joy for all but the 1%

during our recession, and more serious enforcement of present laws.

We need candidate tidying-up based on focus on security, and mastery of the complicated intricacies of world politics. North Koreans test hydrogen bombs, as the murderous megalomaniac Vladimir Putin continues oppressing anyone in his imperialistic way. ISIS expands its territory in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Boco Haram, Al Qaeda and al Nusra bring parallel threats, all separate fires to extinguish. Expertise in international security should be the foremost qualification of our next president. If we're contending with encroaching terrorism, domestic pleasantries--free pre-school and college education, more family leave time--mean relatively little.

Let's clean up the presidential race and toss the candidates that spark joy in favor of those who can destroy terrorist and repressive threats. Our safety must be the first priority, and preserving the strength of our economy the second. It's not a time to replace capitalism with socialism but to bust barriers to earning more. We don't need candidates with legal and ethical problems. We don't need a wall to protect us from Mexicans--but we do need strong efforts to keep terrorists from our midst. It's great to live in an orderly 7-mat home, but most important to put our fundamental priorities for security in order.

Fancy Mogadishu Hotel is like the setting for a novel--but Reality is more Gripping and Horrifying

The Sahafi Hotel, before the attack

"If there is one hotel everyone knows in Mogadishu, it is the Sahafi. Warlords and militants alike used to hang out and plot schemes in the lounge and courtyard while sipping grapefruit juice and pulling apart camel meat steaks."

"...the hotel's owner, Abdirashid Ilgayte, used to welcome guests into his incense-scented office just off the hotel's entrance and regale them with stories of violence and intrigue from Somalia's darkest days..."

Sounds like the beginning of a spy novel. You can almost inhale those succulent camel meat steaks pulling tenderly from the bone...

But instead of the enticing opening to a juicy intrigue, this is a NY Times news story, dated November 2, reporting the latest bloody attack by "one of Al Queda's most murderous offshoots," the Shabab, who rammed an exploding car through the hotel's front gate to allow entry to a cluster of terrorists who shot everyone in their path, then roamed the floors looking for more to kill. The murderers held the charred, rubble-filled hotel for hours; a second car explosion in front two hours after the first wounding or killing several more people, many of whom had come as reporters to the scene.

The original rampage occurred at dawn; "By 11 am, African Union troops in Somalia, along with government forces, overpowered the attackers and shot them dead."

The Sahafi Hotel, under siege

This is just the latest in a series of hotel attacks the Times calls "one of the hallmarks of the Shabab, who have killed scores in Mogadishu in recent years by overwhelming security guards at the gates and then sending in suicidal fighters." The article, by Mohammed Ibrahim and Jeffrey Gettleman, notes, "most of their victims have been fellow Somali Muslims."

We in America listen to the World Series and plan our Sunday outings, while the rest of the world endures a reality we cannot fathom.

"Mogadishu may be safer than it used to be but it is still not safe," the news article continues. "The Shabab once controlled much of the city, bull-whipping women and terrorizing the population by enforcing a harsh version  of Islamic law." The writers observe that the Shabab "seemed to have perfected mass murder on the cheap, including an attack on a university in Kenya in April in which four young Shabab gunmen killed more than 140 people." On the cheap!?

Did you read this article? Are you as appalled and horrified as I am that this kind of ruthless extermination is almost reported ho-hum--just another instance of ubiquitous violence and murder to further an extremist vision of Islam aimed at the entire world? What are the churches and universities supporting BDS (boycot, divestment and sanctions) against Israel doing to combat this much more lethal and festering Islamism?  Then again, it's easy to protest a democracy; not so simple to cut down terrorist extremists whose suicidal tactics prove their complete disregard for life.

I can pray; I can write blogs pointing out these atrocities. These actions seem lame given the enormity of the enemy and the virulent expansion of this deadly power. Then our privileged life happens and we toss the day's newspaper into the recycle bin.