Log In
Username

Password





Search Blog Entries




Blog Entries

What We Would Do

Posted by: tony on 04/24/2007 10:30 PM (Read: )

In the advent of Cho's rampage through Virginia Tech (and anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about doesn't have access to the internet anyway) many people have done what appears to be second guessing the students who were killed. Mark Steyn has taken quite a bit of heat for appearing to do just that.

I guess the definition of irony, is the media trying to shut down what Steyn is saying with regard to the culture of passivity which contributed to the slaughter of the Virginia Tech students and teachers who were there, while at the same time glorifying the killer by giving oodles of air time to his sick "multimedia manifesto". Kathy Shaidle puts it quite well:
First, the pretty commonplace assertion that there's been a negative change in society since (your favourite date here) really seems to unnerve them, and that's an odd position for self-declared conservatives to take (although why am I really surprised at this point?) Didn't the 70s, the decade in which they/we were "raised", bring us sex and drugs and rock and roll and all the other cool stuff that really matters and distinguishes us from those crazy uptight Muslims? If we don't get to hear Howard Stern talk about Janet Jackson's naked 40-year-old boob, the Taliban have won!

Second, a lot of them are misinterpreting me personally so of course I'm all huffy about it. Here's what I just wrote to Treacher (jeez, its not like I don't have a MS to edit today...), sans coffee number one:

When WE say 'WE don't know what WE would do, WE... [ I'm not talking about the students, I'm talking about OUR response to the situation]. You have to read all my posts and not just Steyn's [use of my ] quote which was actually taken from an older post about the Montreal Massacre.

I am concerned with the possibly dangerous cliches that we spout in times like this (I also had an earlier Vtech post about stupid memorials with teddy bears and cheap carnations, along the same lines). What we say and what we think ultimately determine how we act and how others act. Garbage in, garbage out.

"We don't know what we would do" accompanied by the obligatory helpless shrug, predisposes us to thoughtless fatalism. It is of a piece with "who are we to judge" and all the other mantras of submission we chant daily, without thinking.

I'm daring to suggest that we re-examine our cliched responses to situations in the vain hope that we might see that those cliched responses may even be part of a cycle that inspires repeats of the same situations. I'm also suggesting that our very real enemies take great delight in witnessing these responses.

Very thoughtful, probably unpopular since it tramples on the self esteem of those students who were there and the families of those who were killed.

To hell with self esteem. Self esteem comes from doing the right thing. Self esteem comes from behaving in a heroic and selfless manner. Do you think Navy SEALs have any problem with self esteem?

I would like to say that were I in that situation, I would jump that sucker grab his gun away from him and pound him senseless with it. The reality is that it would probably be a race to see if I pissed my pants before or after I dived under a desk. But I can envision myself doing it. Protection of the weak and helpless is wired into my Y-chromosome, and I'd like to think that 9 years of public school and college has not "taught it out of me". (The earlier grades were in Catholic school where they prize masculinity in boys and men.)

We abhor violence in our society, and for good reason. Being gentle, and getting along with other people in a peaceful and productive manner is a Good Thing™. However, by trying to teach the aggressive tendencies out of our young boys, either by punishing them for "boy-like" behavior such as playing cops and robbers, or drugging it out of them with ritalin, is not benefitting our society.

This is because for some males, the instinct to violence will not be taught out of them. Add to that an amoral and anti-social bent, and you have a recipe for disaster. The way to combat it is to allow the natural aggression in boys to develop, and channel it by teaching them gentleness.

Now the focus is on "why did he do it", "and why didn't we see the signs". He did it because he was a sick son of a bitch who went as crazy as a mad dog, and we didn't see the signs because in academia, his right to privacy is more important than our right to safety.

When Cho decided to kill himself, and take as many innocent people with him as he could, one outcome was certain: Cho was going to die.

The best case scenario was that he died before he killed someone else. The worst case scenario is what happened. I prefer in the future to see the first case scenario happen.

We will never be able to identify these kooks 100% of the time. The police are not able to be everywhere. So the only way to stop a crazy man with a gun is another non-crazy man with a gun.

There are people who will say: "You want everyone to walk around with guns? It'll be like the wild west! People will be shooting each other all the time!". No. I want those who are stable, courageous and competent to be able to carry concealed. Maybe in concert with the local police department, with a "boot camp" type training program. This would include range time, combat training, gun maintenance, etc. Perhaps they would need to re-certify periodically to retain their permit. The background checking would be much more invasive and elaborate, and most people who want to "pack heat" would not have a problem with that. This should be open to anyone over the age of 21, man or woman, who can pass the training.

Then when some kook shows up at McDonalds to kill as many people as he can because they served his Big Mac cold, one or more people can stand up as everyone else is diving for cover and plug the a**hole before he can kill too many of the people there. The scumbag will still be dead, and less innocent people will go with him. A win-win situation, as far as I'm concerned.

Gun control doesn't work. It didn't work at VA Tech (which was a "gun free zone"). Gun free zones, be they campuses or municipalities, simply provide a sheep-filled "soft target" for someone bent on mayhem. This is exacerbated by not allowing campus security to carry guns, so the students can feel safe because heaven knows that it's much better to feel safe than to be safe.

We need to teach our children how to be safe. The first thing is not to rely on the merciful nature of a psychopath with a gun.

Wahrheit, writing for Eternity Road, says:
Obviously, if the door has a lock it's locked by now, but that's not stopping this killer. There's a terrible clamor as rounds are fired at the handle and a tremendous crash as the door is kicked open.

You are not cowering under a desk hoping against hope that he will not notice you, or spare you if he sees you. You are behind cover, if there is any available, out of the line of fire through the door at a ninety degree angle to the side of the door that opens, and if the killer enters the room you are ready with your weapons, a chair a desk a backpack a telephone, anything big and heavy enough to look as if it would hurt, and as he takes the first step in that room you stay low and you start throwing things at his head like you're Nolan Freaking Ryan, or sliding a table right at his crotch like a freight train. You are taking the initiative, unbalancing the psycho bastard, who has so far encountered nothing like this, and whose scenario only includes a feeling of absolute power over his chosen victims. He may fire wildly as he tries to duck; he may not even get off a shot in his surprise as you close on his sorry form. His aim will be bad and his mind will be in turmoil, but you know what you're about; you're about to take him OUT.

The whole essay is really good, read it.

You can only be a victim if you don't choose not to be.

Take a good look at the man in the picture. His name was Liviu Librescu, and he was a professor at Virginia Tech. He was also a holocaust survivor who probably has had first hand experience looking evil in the face and understanding that you can't negotiate with it.

He died heroically, saving the students in his classroom by blocking the door with his body as they escaped to safety.
Filed in :: The Men | Permalink | Discuss (1) |

Imus Runs Afoul of PC Police

Posted by: tony on 04/12/2007 11:16 PM (Read: 1069)

I used to listen to Imus in the morning during my drive into work. The only reason I listened to him is that I enjoy talk radio, and Imus was the best of the worst locally.

Imus recently ran afoul of the Sharpton / Jackson race entepreneur tag team for referring to the Rutgers women's baskball team as "nappy-headed hos" (a "ho", for those not up on gangsta-speak, is a "whore" otherwise known as a "prostitute".)

This is a term that a gentleman never uses to refer to a woman, but here's something you might find a bit unbelievable, but John Donald Imus is not a gentleman. I would hazard a guess that he never has been or never will be a gentleman. He's what's know in the business as a "shock jock". This means that he will say the most outrageous things to get ratings.

Having listened to him over the years, I have heard him affect gangsta-speak on numerous occasions, and I even have a sneaking suspision that he might even consider himself 'African-American enough' to use those terms with the rest of the "homeys", but he learned that this isn't the case.

I find it interesting that it took this long for Imus to run afoul of the Sharpton / Jackson race machine. Almost on a daily basis, one of Imus' stooges, Bernard McGurk would don a paper cap reminiscent of a dunce cap (quite approproriate) and pretend to be Cardinal Egan, who is the leader of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of New York (he used to pretend to be Cardinal O'Connor until that holy man died).

McGurk would affect this high pitched faux Irish brogue and say outlandish things pretending to be the Cardinal.

Below the fold is an example of this sort of offensive speech, and I'm going to cut out a few of the lesser parts as an example:
"What could be funnier than watching a bunch of Yids gone wild, bejesus. What did they do, raise the price of bagels by a nickel or some damn thing?"

"She was blaaaack, as the night... the cop he was whiter than white..." (to the tune of Louie, louie, regarding congresswoman Cynthia McKinney)

"This bug-eyed dingbat should be arrested for sportin' that whacky buckwheat hairdo in public, Imus-in-the-morn..."

"In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, last rites for the I-man we want the most"

"Lord good riddence to the overrated dwarf from the today show and good luck to CBS gettin' viewers for this 50 year old ho, bejesus, Lord hear our prayer".

So I guess it's ok to insult, blacks, Jews and Catholics in this particular segment. I heard reference to be "buckwheat hairdo" and "w(ho)re" in the one segment.

This is standard fare for Imus.

Imus, is offensive, but he used to be paid to be offensive. He also raised millions of dollars a year for children's charities.

Jackson and Sharpton are not paid to be offensive, I guess they either work on it, or come by it naturally. Also, with Sharpton's "white interloper" comment, and Jackson's "hymietown" (with no apology) it makes them, well... hypocrites.

I'll prognosticate that Imus is offered a sweet deal on satellite radio, like the other shock jocks. My guess is he'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
Filed in :: The Sissies | Read More | Permalink | Discuss (0) |

Caption Contest

Posted by: tony on 04/04/2007 11:44 PM (Read: )

Here's my entry:

"If I were a bitch, man... yabba di-a-di-a-di-a-di-a-doo..."
Filed in :: The Girls | Permalink | Discuss (1) |


Copyright © Manly Men dot org - 2004-2007