I tripped across the following movie of Mark Judge shaving his face.
So this got me interested in the wet shaving "hobby". I was interested in a shaving experience like my grandfather had. So I bought a brush, soap and a double edged safety razor, and I have been shaving with it for a few days.
It's kind of a nice experience putting hot lather on your face (and in my case, head) and shaving with a sharp blade.
I have been learning my technique from the Badger & Blade Forums. I'd recommend all guys give it a try.
I have been looking for a manly man to vote for in 2008 for president of the United States. Forget the Democrats. The manliest man among them is Hillary. The Republicans have some manly men, the manliest so far is Rudy. But he has some goofy social ideas, not the least of which is this wierd cognitive dissonance of being personally opposed to abortion, but supporting a woman's right to choose what he's personally against. Then there's McCain. I'm sorry, I just can't support a man who on a regular basis gets into bed with Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy. Then there Mitt. His Mormonism doesn't bother me, but his recent pro-life conversion does. I can't help but think he'd be singing a different tune if he were running for governor of Massachussets rather than president of the United States.
And out of left field comes (can you almost hear the pounding hooves and trumpets blaring)...
Yes, Fred... who can change the course of runaway government spending, leap to the top of the presidential polls in a single bound simply by hinting he might run... Who, as not so mild mannered actor on Law and Order...
Ok, I'm gushing.
I feel like a guy who has been led to a buffet of salad, quiche and tofu, looking at it and wondering which I'll have to pick when from the kitchen comes the smell of a big, juicy T-bone steak!
I'll wait for the steak. Something I can sink my teeth into.
I find in none of the currently declared field of Presidential candidates ANY whom I can trust, let alone believe. They all have the baggage of their principled evacuations and desertions. And, while I accept that it is folly to expect any human being can or WILL hold to ALL on my wish-list of expectations, it is not unreasonable for me to set a standard below which I will not belly-crawl. I have come to that, and my decision is final, whither the storm or the clear-sky sunrise.
Speaking ONLY for myself here, with the release of what "appears" to be a pre-candidacy declaration website, I have decided that I'm with Fred.
He is no Reagan. Neither is he a Bush, or Clinton, or (thank God) Carter. And, so what? What good is there in vetting candidates against previous office-holders other than to flout them with any perceived weakness contrasted against another's strength. Times change, people move around, society ebbs and flows, and America the Republic is always on the move. To be fair, none of the candidates should be compared in the same light separated as they are by the times in which they wanted to be President.
This is where I'm at. I want to vote for a good man for president. No that's not a typo. I meant good man for president. By that, I mean someone male or female who embodies the virtues that define a manly man. I would be honored to vote for someone like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleeza Rice for president.
[Note: I am not employed by or affiliated with Fred's campaign, but God willing, I will be soon - and I'll do it for FREE...Fred? You listening?]
the same disclaimer applies to me. And I have already responded to the request for volunteers on the website. I got the auto-responder back, but so far, no human on the end.
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.
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.
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.
"Manhood has always demanded decency and responsible behavior. It’s boys who want untamed aggression without consequences to rule. Unfortunately, too many people have taken the attributes of boys and applied them to manhood. It’s long past time we put a stop to that kind of crap." -- John Palmer / LongHairedWierdo"
Posted by: tony on 12/20/2006 10:40 PM (Read: 1183)
This little clip has been all over the blogosphere. It just goes to show you that the First Amendment to the Constitution allows each and every one of us to be as big an idiot as we want to be without any interference from our government. It allows comical clips like Dan Rather breaking news on a 1977 document written on Microsoft Word. It also allows this goofball his 15 minutes of fame.
He has placed a post called "Shamans" on his weblog that will probably draw the ire of every liberal special interest group out there. That in itself earns him points. You'll understand why when you read on.
Francis is unabashedly, unashamedly and unapologetically a man. He is probably one of the brightest stars in the firmament of my bloglines reader. He is insightful, poignant and in this world of poiltically correct pussies, courageous.
He writes.
What are the taboos du jour? I'm sure you can name a few:
Differences between the sexes, particularly with regard to specific mental competences and the capacity for aggression or initiative;
Differences between the races, particularly with regard to general intelligence, proclivity for violent, illegal, or antisocial behavior, and family feeling;
The origins, nature, and consequences of homosexuality, particularly with regard to its potential mutability, its association with certain diseases, and its tendency to "proselytize" to the unformed young.
The inheritability of general intelligence, and the extent to which post-natal factors can elicit it, stunt it, or compensate for genetic factors.
The objective nature of limitations incurred because of handicaps, birth defects, and other irreparable physical conditions.
Uh, huh. He's hit the major ones. Boys and girls are different. Not just because he has a penis and she has a vagina, the difference goes right to the chromosomal level. Not all cultures are equal. Some are downright destructive, others are preferable. Some people are born stupid. Some people are born stronger than others physically. Facts of life to most of us, but horrible sacrilage to the "shamans".
Francis continues later in the article:
According to the major taboos of our time, this makes me a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic chauvinist abuser of the physically challenged. By copping to all this, I've violated all the major, politically correct taboos of our time: about race, gender, sexual orientation, the handicapped, and multiculturalism. Needless to say, the enforcers of those taboos would like to see me boiled in oil.
They can dip their outrage in beaten eggs, roll it in crushed walnuts, and shove it up their asses.
They wouldn't be able to fit that amount of outrage into their scrunched up sphincters. There is never a shortage of outrage. When there isn't enough available, it needs to be manufactured. When Jesse Jackson can't find real racism, we hear about him protesting some black high school basketball players who violated some rule so they were singled out for disciplinary action. The fact of the matter is that the white boys didn't violate the rules, that's why they weren't disciplined.
Race entepreneurs like him ought to be tarred, feathered and ridden out on a rail.
Read Francis' whole post. Warning: there is spicy language (which would earn a movie an "R" rating), but it's not gratuitous, it is used to prove a point. and I think he does.
Yes, it's the inimitable Jay Anderson from Pro Ecclesia. You have to be really secure in your manhood to wear a skirt kilt, especially in the cold highlands where the wind can blow up your skirt kilt and chill your dangly bits.
Jay writes:
A couple of weekends ago, our family attended The Ohio Scottish Games at the Lorain County Fairgrounds in Wellington, Ohio. We spent an entire Saturday at the festival, and had a wonderful time. I highly recommend this event.
As much as I enjoy ribbing Scotsmen about their kilts, I've always wanted to visit the highlands of Scotland. I may do it some day when I retire.
Looks like a good time, Jay. Glad you had fun. Get a chance to have any haggis? (If you did, I'll point jay (at) manlymen (dot) org at any e-mail address you'd like. :))
Go read the whole thing. Sister Toldjah also asks "Would you like to show your support for old style masculinity? Then please trackback to this post with photos (or linking to photos in the comments) of manly men - photos that would no doubt give Ethan Hawke and others like him a serious case of the elitist intellectual eye-rolls."
I bet the man at the right will not only produce "intellectual eye-rolls", but full fledged intellectual mouth-foaming. But heck, our President is an example of a manly man.
As a 30-something male who has been married for 16 years, and who is feeling magnanimous, I have decided to share my learning with younger men considering embarking upon a similar journey of marital bliss. Women, please click here now. Men, for your general edification the following may be duly classified as “lessons learned and duly conferred”:
On Property:
The wedding ceremony seals her entitlement to your assets. When you were single and bought her whimsical gifts, it was your money. Now, when you buy her flowers or a little something, you are “wasting” money. What’s hers is hers and what’s yours is “ours.” Discretionary income spent on your hobbies and pastimes is considered to be of marginal utility to the “family” and will soon become a source of tension. Sorry. At some point she may even tell you not to send her flowers on Valentine’s Day because it’s a waste of money. She is lying. If that delivery man doesn’t show up at her office with a bouquet you are toast. And toast sleeps on the couch.
On September 11, 2001, four groups of terrorists boarded planes, hijacked them. Three of them flew them into the twin towers of the former World Trade Center, and one flew it into the Pentagon, killing thousands of our fellow Americans and those international visitors who were enjoying our hospitality.
On one of those planes, the people found their steel. This was Flight 93. The people foiled the plans of the terrorists and in the ensuing struggle gave their lives.
For this we thank them.
Our troops were then deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq to take the war to our enemies rather than wait for them to take the war to us. This is prudent. It keeps our families safe. For that we owe a debt of gratitude to our brave men and women who volunteered to fight for that which we hold dear. Some of our citizens on the left don't seem to think that this is a worthwhile venture. I disagree. They call us "chickenhawks".
Captain Ed at The Captain's Quarters is mobilizing the 101st Fighting Keyboardists. I say this is a worthwhile venture. The Captain says:
And why the chicken hawk? When we looked into it, it turns out that the chicken hawk is a pretty impressive predator. It's the largest of its family. This species vigorously defends its territory, getting even more aggressive when the conditions get harshest. It adapts to all climates. Most impressively, it feeds on chickens, mice, and rats. [ed. - The Captain didn't include the links. I did.]
I love chicken. I guess that puts me in pretty good company.
I'm going to enlist if the Captain will have me. I would be honored to wear the 101st Fighting Keyboardist badge on my weblog.
Correction: Captain Midnight reminds me that there were two planes that flew into the twin towers. Of course there were. I must have been thinking of three planes flying into the twin towers and pentagon when I wrote that. Duh. Thanks Cap.
One of the main foci of this blog (besides poking fun at radical feminists) is to try and qualify what "being a man" is all about, and what it means to be a "manly man".
As a man, you are stronger physically than women. You are also bigger than they are and hence intimidating to them, if only on a subconscious level. Never loom over them, never yell at them, never treat them as though they were men. (On the other side of the coin, don't condescend to them either. They're small, not dumb.) Bear in mind that you have all the equipment and strength necessary at any moment to overpower and violate any woman. It's therefore vital that you conduct yourself in a way that makes obvious that you not only wouldn't do something like that, but you'd step in front of a bullet or a grizzly bear to keep her safe. This isn't something you say out loud, but an attitude that stays in the back of your mind.
And there you have it. Read the whole thing. It's quite good.
