Category: fancy thinkin’

Hundred percent willing, fractionally able

New York Times.

WASHINGTON — As North Korea hints at new military provocations in the coming days, the United States and South Korea have drawn up plans to respond more forcefully than in the recent past, but in a limited way intended to prevent an escalation to broader war.

Thomas Sowell in the National Review.

Yet there on the front page of the April 8 New York Times was a story about how unnamed “American officials” were planning a “proportional” response to any North Korean attack. This was spelled in an example: If the North Koreans “shell a South Korean island that had military installations” then the South Koreans would retaliate with “a barrage of artillery of similar intensity.”

Well that’s just crazy.

Back before the clever new notion of “proportional” response became the vogue, our response to Pearl Harbor was ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And Japan has not attacked or even threatened anybody since then. Nor has any war broken out anywhere that is at all comparable with World War II.

All the Japanese did was sneak-attack one of our islands. And what did we do? Retaliate with nuclear weapons. Now they’re our friends. The lesson there: ‘Don’t fool around with your enemies when you can crush them.’ Also, now would be a perfect time to start making friends with the North Koreans wink.

Which policy is better? There was a time when we followed the ancient adage “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The track record of massive retaliation easily beats that of the more sophisticated-sounding proportional response.

This is quite odd, I must say. I know virtually nothing of war theory, but I must have heard about “Just War” 25 years ago. There, the “proportional response” idea plays a central role, both in the cause for war and in its proper dispensation (if such a thing is possible). I much later came to know it was something Augustine discussed around 400 A.D. Wikipedia says its roots can be traced back a thousand years before that.

These are fundamentals of Western warring traditions. I can’t imagine any decent West Point education that doesn’t discuss at some length Just War Theory and proportional response. So what’s the point of Sowell’s rant? Is he laughably ignorant? Or is he merely in the mood for an all-out conflagration?

North Korea is a mandatory conscription state. Its government spends between one-quarter and one-third of its budget on the military. Accounting for the home guard, there are something like 9 million North Koreans ready and willing to go to battle on any given day. Would Sowell like to become aware of any of this? Or would he prefer to fight fire with fire, vis a vis the enemy’s well known sophistication?


Taranto and the fay virus that consumed humanity

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, he thinks gay marriage is a threat. No not to other marriages, c’mon, nobody is saying that (all his friends say it). To the institution of marriage. A. Barton Hinkle doubts:

Is there some ontologically separate entity called Marriage that exists independent of all the marriages of all the couples in the world? There would have to be, according to the institution-of-marriage argument. But that makes no sense. After all, you would not say a virus “threatens humanity” if, in fact, no individual human person was ever harmed by the virus.

Oh No. Now Taranto will have to break out his blog hammer. How about it? He invents and infects the world with a ‘Hinkle Virus.’ This is a bug that doesn’t actually harm anybody, but it makes your future children homosexuals.

We have established as a condition of the experiment–and we trust that in the real world Hinkle agrees–that it is not harmful to a woman to give birth to a homosexual child, nor is it harmful to a child to be born homosexual. And since the virus affects the sexual orientation only of the yet-unborn, it should not disrupt any existing heterosexual relationship.

Yet it should be obvious that the Hinkle virus would threaten humanity by dramatically reducing the incentive to reproduce. Presumably it should be obvious that the Hinkle virus would threaten humanity by dramatically reducing the incentive to reproduce. Presumably the next generation would stave off complete extinction by means of artificial insemination, but it’s preposterous to think that fertility in an all-homosexual society would come anywhere near the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman . .

Progeny down, homosexuality a threat to mankind. That’s that. I think a better blogger might have finally defined ‘humanity’ at this point — Taranto has been using it on the one hand for ‘human characteristics’ and on the second for ‘future existence.’ That would have started an even bigger controversy, I imagine, granting his conservative take, but at least he might have ridden out the traffic bump with a ‘harumph.’ Instead, Taranto claims victory.

The foregoing is not an argument against same-sex marriage but rather a defense of a form of argument that Hinkle makes an embarrassing philosophical error in categorically rejecting.

Um, take that(?).

. . Hinkle’s reduction of human institutions and societies–and of humanity itself–to merely the sum of their individual members is a reductio ad absurdum of individualism into a kind of philosophical narcissism.

Ah! And that.

Hinkle’s cognitive error–an inordinate focus on the individual and refusal to consider systemic effects–is quite common on the left and the libertarian right.

And that. But be wary, friends. While Taranto makes with the war whoops, I can assure you that Hinkle is very much alive. Roy Edroso:

Taranto could as well have said “any children they conceive after infection will be born male” — nothing wrong with being male, right? — or “any children they conceive after infection will be born female” — nothing wrong with being female, right? Which in the long run would have an even more dramatic effect on reproduction, if not on the “incentive to reproduce.” We could use this, I suppose, as proof that masculinity presents a threat to mankind without blah blah. Or femininity!

Gender, the ultimate individualism. Taranto’s thought-experiment aimed to affirm his appreciation for ‘humanity,’ but it proved he was interested in much less: ‘fertility.’ You reduce the species to a single characteristic, you run the risk of going philosophically extinct. There may be two archetypes, man and woman, but neither one can stand for humanity as a whole. It’s fair to say the same for homosexuals. You listen to business majors argue biology, and this is what you get.

Believe it or don’t, there’s more. Remember Taranto’s chest thumping over the presumption of Hinkle?

. . Hinkle’s reduction of human institutions and societies–and of humanity itself–to merely the sum of their individual members is a reductio ad absurdum . .

Lo that ‘humanity’ would be the sum of all human beings! How frustrating it is to argue with children. Taranto dismantled this blunder by what method? By changing, biologically and behaviorally, all human beings. So he’s not much for logic either.

I admit, this is a splendid comedy. But what does Taranto’s act tell us, if anything? It says that our biology informs and inflects our humanity, but it does not define it. And that, like most other conservatives, marriage (remember that?) is the last thing he’s interested in.


They mean to win Wimbledon. In their heads.

They want the cool flag. With all its fifty stars. They want the bullying military. With its death from above. They want the football stadium flyover. With its $2 billion stealth marvels. They want every one of the planetary bragging rights entitled the citizens of the most dangerous, most technologically advanced superpower in the planet’s history.

But they don’t want the Bill of Rights.

A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.

They’ve grown tired of eating their peas. Now its licorice whips for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Thanks for the internet, but we’re going back to segregation. Why? Because we can. Oh, and if the Supreme [ha] Court comes after them with the Supremacy Clause?

“The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people,” the bill states.

The Tenth Amendment nullifies it. Double jinx, no backsies. What?


Argo vs. Lincoln, the conservative critique

The Oscar for Best Picture came down to a battle between the favorites Lincoln and Argo. Ben Affleck’s Iran hostage crisis thriller won out, but fans are still arguing over which is the better flick. For some the answer came down to politics. What if Bill Buckley were still alive, which of the two would he prefer? Only one can be a true statement of conservatism, and that’s your winner.

“Opposing slavery and supporting the free market were, for the early GOP, two sides of the same coin,” said Michael Zak, a Republican Party historian and author of “Back to Basics for the Republican Party,” a book on the party’s heritage, connecting the achievements of Lincoln with that of Ronald Reagan. “Slavery impoverishes an entire society.”

. . David Von Drehle, author of “Rise to Greatness: Abraham Lincoln and America’s Most Perilous Year,” made a similar point in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in December, writing, “Lincoln’s determination to resist and finally defeat the slave system wasn’t based on ideas of racial equality, however, or on abstract ideals of human dignity. It was grounded in his belief that liberty of all kinds begins with economic freedom.”

Slavery had socialized the market, which of course made Abe’s political instincts itch. If I could get the Thirteenth Amendment passed, he thought, I could unshackle this low-wage economy (some instances, very low). The fight for the soul of America was on — and look who won. If those aren’t Republican bona fides, I don’t know what is. Lincoln was the better film. I think.

“Historians such as Doris Kearns Goodwin are acting as partisan Democrats when they claim that the parties have switched,” Zak said in an interview. “They can’t defend decades of Democrat villainy, so instead they smash and grab Republican achievements.”

Danger. Goodwin provided the source material for the movie. And the liberal production team, Steven Spielberg et. al., saw Abe as a fellow traveler. Audiences picked up on that, so the film is something of a politics trap. What a shame Chuck Norris didn’t write or direct it. I see little point in playing into the hands of Commie propagandists, you see. Maybe Argo?

. . it is clearly explained in the film that the U.S. government knows that nobody in Hollywood will help since they don’t want to take a risk; cooperate with the CIA, which they regard as evil; or lift a finger to save the Americans. Only one man — an independent director — is enough of an outcast and rebel rogue to help. The film is thus not a celebration of Hollywood as hero but a condemnation of the town for its anti-patriotic, narrow selfishness.

Sounds right, Euro-liberals. Only a Hollywood outsider could save the hostages.

After all, it was the Obama Administration that did the opposite of Operation Argo: it refused to try to save four Americans, including the ambassador, who were killed in Benghazi.

So an award for a film about saving Americans is given by a representative of a government that did not save Americans in front of a cheering crowd of people who — according to that film — would have refused to help save Americans as both sides congratulate themselves on what great people they are!

Sweet, delicious irony. The anti-Americans rewarding American heroism. Michelle Obama to boot! Good enough for me, Argo was the best film. What, no?

Rather than picking a movie that dramatized one of the most glorious moments in American history – the final abolition of slavery – the Academy chose a film that portrayed one of the most embarrassing – the Iran hostage crisis. Instead of a story of redemption based on military success, impassioned debate and bare-knuckled deployment of political power, the Oscar went to a daring rescue based on fast-talking Tinseltown scam artists and a silly Hollywood movie that didn’t even really exist.

A sleazy film director? Beating out the Great Emancipator? Only on Planet Hollywood.

. . the Lincoln liberals displayed a reverence for our sixteenth president and the epic achievements of his heroic generation that can arguably be called conservative, while spreading the wealth to a less deserving achievement like Argo reflects values on the part of the Motion Picture Academy that qualify as undeniably liberal.

But let’s not forget: Ben Affleck screwed Iran, which was amazing. Daniel Day Lewis got shot in the head, but never gloried in victimhood. Nobody had an abortion, golly! Come to think of it, there’s almost nothing to distinguish between the two films.


Thunderbird from Martha’s Vineyard

I think this is a real hoot. Self-snarking funny.

Gilded Class Warriors
Liberal grandees attack the rich while enjoying their lifestyle.
By Victor Davis Hanson | National Review

In his first term, President Obama was criticized for trash-talking the 1-percenters while enjoying the aristocracy of Martha’s Vineyard and the nation’s most exclusive golf courses . .

Before we get too far, let’s just cut to Hanson’s chase. The President is a big fat hypocrite. What’s more Obama’s insincerity has spread throughout the left like a wildfire, exposing the pro-poverty and heroin-chic crowd for the Park Avenue Set they’d rather be. If you think your Chrysler 300 will score a curbside spot at Le Bernardin, think again. You all should know Stuart Weitzman does not make a rope-sole sandal. (These last bits I added after peeking at what Victor’s obviously thinking.)

The message here is ‘You clearly want to be us. So quit playing games.’

And that’s what’s funny. Because Victor is very clearly confused. It’s bad enough that a President talks about the rich again and again without ever once kissing their asses. That alone whets his suspicion. But added to that, Obama speaks of the wealthy as if they were lucky? Or wielding of power? Or imbued with societal responsibilities? These things are simply not done. There is but one truth to be discussed publicly of fat cats and it is this: Me Too Please!

Obama knows this and what a liar:

Obama never quite squared his accusations that “millionaires and billionaires” had not paid their fair share with his own obvious enjoyment of the perks of “corporate jet owners,” “fat cat bankers,” and Las Vegas junketeers.

A devastating indictment, don’t you think? Obama never squared his mentioning that the rich pay low taxes with his own eating well and flying comfortably. This class of hypocrisy would kill a decent man.

Of course Obama is rich, tells everybody he’s rich, pays low taxes, and tells everybody he pays low taxes. Because it’s true. And now he’d like to pay more taxes, and he wants his fellow lucky ducks to do the same. This is an obvious deceit, of some Machiavellian stripe. For Hanson’s part, he will toss the government a few extra bucks after Obama goes bankrupt and lives in a cardboard box for the rest of his life. Fair is fair, after all.

Now, that paradox has continued right off the bat in the second term. In the State of the Union, Obama once more went after “the few” and “the wealthiest and the most powerful,” whom he blasted as the “well-off and the well-connected” and the “billionaires with high-powered accountants.”

Let’s get straight to the President’s dishonesty: The rich politician “once more went after” his rich neighbors with insults. “The few.” Which is true. “The wealthiest.” That’s true. “The most powerful.” True. “Well-off.” True. “Well connected.” True. “Billionaires.” True. “With high-powered accountants.” True. The word impeachment fails the development.

Obama frankly described the wealthiest among us in complimentary terms, and Hanson is galled by the attack. If the President had uttered something like “blue-blood,” Victor and his pals would have had to storm an armory to restore the Rockefellers’ reputation. They’re a defenseless bunch and Victor’s nearly a martyr, and whaddyaknow he happens to be landed and wealthy himself.

He also deigns it his responsibility to speak freely of American groups and classes, but he rarely picks nits in the mirror. He draws on a litany (here, here) of foul and derisive stereotypes to describe the poors and the ethnics, but we assume that’s all they really are, right? Certainly. Still, it would be wise of you to refrain from mentioning David Koch is “well connected” lest Victor unload both barrels of his class-warfare gun…

Like clockwork, the president then jetted to West Palm Beach for yet another golfing vacation at one of the nation’s priciest courses . .

…while the President, who’s rich, is rich.


Be all that you can Febreze

Can we agree? The housewife who pulls an AR-15 from her dirty laundry hamper to Swiss-cheese “three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home with her children screaming in the background” could not be sexier. Talk about yer red hot right-wing mama. Like a bare-ass shivering Marilyn Monroe wearing Ronald Reagan’s hair. On her head, you goons.

Alternatively: How about a woman dressed in fatigues, trained for battle, ready to fight? With Uncle Sam’s M-16 slung across her shoulder? Why you bastards.

The sidespinning continues. In the wingnut stewing over SecDef Panetta’s decision to allow women in combat, this latest argument I fully expected at some point to hear. I just didn’t expect it to come from a woman. Here at first is the American Thinker’s Marion Dreyfus, cerca paragraph number three:

Since time began, women aspiring to “male” jobs and occupations have been derided and disrespected as a consequence of their menstrual periodicity. Everything suspect, from womb-connected “hysteria” to lack of judgment and inferior cognition was assigned to the female, and used as a club to deny women representation in education, careers, the opportunity rung on the rigorous escalator of achievement.

Okay. Then here she is about 25 grafs later:

Women experiencing their menses may be sussed out by sensitive dogs and/or detection devices, and staked positions in camo may be disclosed.

Seem unlikely? It is not. Hunters refrain from aftershave and perfumed soaps when on the hunt, as do professional anglers: Animals and even fish can detect an infinitesimal taint of sweat, scent, cosmetics and ointments in hunters and fishermen.

Marion might want to choose a side in the War On Periods. I expect Bryan Fischer tomorrow to quote her extensively seeing as how she’s a terrific expert.

For the sake of argument, anyhoo, let’s just assume the photos of the Afghan war are accurate. If Fido-al-Waziri out on patrol with the Taliban can smell anything other than ox dung and Chinese smokes, I’ll be surprised.


Started to think about it myself

This was on point:

Daily Caller | Jason Howerton

DC picked up the meme that NY State Senator Greg Ball laid down in a press release:

The Department of Homeland Security is the latest to find Governor Cuomo’s anti-Second Amendment agenda is at odds with reality. A report by Steve McGough of cites a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP) on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and member components such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking over 7,000 AR-15’s and matching 30 round clips . .

This federal government rebuke of Cuomo comes just hours after news broke that two students from Rochester lives were evidently saved by an AR-15 as armed intruders entered their home. The very same personal defense weapon Cuomo plans to take out of law abiding gun owners hands protected two of New York’s best and brightest.

The gun nuts seem to think we oppose assault weapons because they don’t kill people fast enough. Odd. Factory slaughter is all they’re good for. Unless the simultaneous killing of game and rending of beef jerky is a good thing (mind the shards of hot bone and lead). As they say, any argumentative port in a storm.

This was Ball’s great ‘take that’ to the liberal world last week. Pardon the legacy media timing of the post, but I’ve spent most of my time occupied with other pursuits:

Lying around on the sofa.

And swallowing pills. You’re wondering how long it takes before a cold turns a reasonable person into a homicidal lunatic? 10 days. After that you’re measuring suitable targets for your rage. Good thing people were used to running away from me on sight.


G.I. Jane driving them all crazy (the bad way)

Women stepping into combat roles. Who knew the right wing would freak out this way? This is, well, women already do that. Been doing ‘war’ for a while thanks. But until now I don’t suppose conservatives had the chance to complain about it properly. They could really use some time to work the whole thing through in their heads:

Regarding sex, what’s going to happen if a leader appears to show preferential treatment to his lover? What if he has to pick a few soldiers for a dangerous mission – will his lover be included? What happens to morale and cohesion if some soldiers are receiving love and sex on a regular basis and some are left out? What if some soldiers are extremely jealous or show stalking tendencies? What happens if soldiers are willing to literally fight for their love interest?

That last bit works for me. But, generally, if you’re furloughing soldiers two-at-a-time for honeymoons you’re not doing combat readiness any favors.

James Taranto at Wall Street Journal gets a note from a Marine Corps veteran about this. It’s such a leveler he reprints it for his column.

As a Marine Corps veteran of three combat tours, the first as a rifle platoon commander during the Vietnam War, my concern is what this policy will contribute to further breaking down the already-troubled relationships of men and women in our society.

That’s a new one. After seeing front line action, women aren’t going to like men any more. Have I got that right?

My concerns:

What kind of a man is it who can send women off to kill and maim? What kind of society does that?

What kind of society does that to anybody? A sick one. But as long as women don’t have to do it, they won’t complain. And that way we just keep on keepin’ on, which is nice.

What kind of society bemoaning that men don’t seem to respect women can’t see that part of the respect they demand is predicated on the specialness of the other?

Better to have the specials sitting at home fretting if their boyfriends and fathers are still alive and breathing. Wondering if they have the use of their arms and legs. That’s better for everybody.

Perhaps it is possible in a firefight to distinguish between how one treats women and men, but I doubt that I could do it. And if I am trained to treat men and women the same throughout my career, can this have no significant effect on how I treat women otherwise?

Like when some random guy at the hardware store tells this guy to shoot someone, he does it. Men are officers, remember? Countries have for the most part sorted this problem out I think, with the uniforms and such. Taranto then throws in his civilian pennies:

One way of defining feminism is as the pursuit of the mutually irreconcilable goals of sexual equality and sensitive treatment of women.

Let’s take it for granted James means “gender equality.” Sexual equality is too mind boggling an idea to consider. Can you imagine the numbers of male prostitutes society would have to provide? Not sure how that “Plushy” thing would work, either.

You’d think that contradiction would be a weakness, but it’s actually a strength: Every advance for equality creates a demand for more measures to promote sensitivity, and vice versa.

And to wit: Every demand for more measures to promote sensitivity would create an advance for equality. Have I got that right? Or is that meaningless?

Feminism’s failures perpetuate feminism, at the expense of other goals such as defending the country.

As I mentioned before, the Israeli Defense Forces had women in combat roles from the beginning. They haven’t lost any wars yet.

I think the nuts are getting panicky because the portrait of the American Warrior comes tightly bound with the notion of Ultimate Authority. That’s no place for women, or so they thought. It’s already bad enough that so few of them obey The Bible.


Founding Fathers on rapid-fire assault rifles

They’re just making things up about Thomas Jefferson. Which is necessary because he hasn’t yet embraced the Bushmaster/Colt side of the argument.

In the spirit of fighting fire with fire, a concept which the Founding Fathers likely grasped in its entirety, do you suppose they would now deny us the ability to be at least as well armed as those who would criminally abuse us?

‘. . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Done, yes. That will do. Excellent. Now how to fight fire. With . . what? The incontinent horse? No. The sodden wife? Bah. [pause] Yes! With fire! Fight fire with fire. Gadzooks the entire concept! Now I apply it to weapons: Every Citizen Should Have A Hundred.’

When a home invader can knock down your door and point an illegally obtained, fully automatic machine pistol at your face, do you really believe your Founding Fathers wouldn’t want you to have, at the minimum, a 17 round semi-automatic handgun to abort that planned home invasion in the entryway?

‘Martha, take this down: Tis the Gentleman’s duty to obtain for Himself a high muzzle-velocity weapon and a 17 cartridge magazine. To participate in American life, full as it is with the arm-ed criminal, random skirmish and desultory volley. Now I should be succinct, succinct being goode, and declare war. This Is War. Sincerely Jebediah Blastloon.’

‘Yes, this will be a great nation. Or a fine buffalo hunt. I have partaken of too much absinthe mead again and must go to bed good evening.’


You pawn the kids off on Mr. Death

I don’t envy you parents given the questions your kids might have about the Sandy Hook massacre. What would you do? I have no idea, run fast I guess. Why did he do it? He’s crazy I suppose. I know that doesn’t help. I’m not a survivalist, I just don’t think about these things. It hurts to think about it.

Michelle Malkin however thinks about these things. How else to explain all the clever suggestions? The National Review with the goods:

These seven simple commonsense steps are adapted from a post I published on my blog after the horrific Newtown massacre. Our hearts ache, but we are not completely helpless or hopeless in the face of evil and the unknown. And we are not alone. This Christmas, cherish life, keep faith, and practice self empowerment.

Fine by me. Put our heads together and come up with a plan. Michelle takes the lead:

7. Teach our kids about the acts of heroes in times of crisis . .

6. Train our kids. When they see something troublesome or wrong, they should say something . .

5. Limit our kids’ time online and control their exposure to desensitizing cultural influences. Turn off the TV. Get them off the bloody video games . .

4. If you see a parent struggling with an out-of-control child, don’t look the other way . .

Dear, these are not very helpful. I don’t imagine my walking up to a parent and offering to wrestle their kid will be either a welcome or practical act. Oh but wait here comes the top sensible thing:

1. Teach our kids to value and respect life by valuing and respecting them always.

How semi-literate. And hypocritical, remember this?

RIVERSIDE, California (AFP) — A former US Marine was acquitted of manslaughter here Thursday in the shooting deaths of four unarmed Iraqi prisoners during 2004 fighting in Fallujah.

Jose Luis Nazario, 28, was found not guilty of all charges after a landmark trial at the US District Court in Riverside, southeast of Los Angeles . .

Nazario was alleged to have shot dead two of the captives himself before ordering two subordinates to kill the others.

However the prosecution’s case was weakened after the two other Marines implicated in the killings — Jermaine Nelson and Ryan Weemer — refused to testify against Nazario last week and were declared in contempt of court.

Here was Michelle, triumphant:

This won’t be on the front page of the NYTimes.

Justice for former US Marine Jose Luis Nazario.

It was justice when Jose’s subordinates refused to testify how he shot and killed unarmed prisoners. Malkin-justice. Roughly translated: Wear a uniform, kill as you like. Michelle’s respect for life is no match for her sadism. Here’s the unabridged Malkin Number One brilliant suggestion:

1. Teach our kids to value and respect life by valuing and respecting them always. And in loving and valuing life, teach them also not to fear death.

In loving and valuing life teach children to welcome death. Huh?

The Catholic hymn “Be Not Afraid” offers time-tested solace and sage advice:

If you pass through raging waters, in the sea, you shall not drown.

If you walk amidst the burning flames, you shall not be harmed.

If you stand before the pow’r of hell and death is at your side…

You would do this to children? With all these little corpses laying around? Don’t be afraid honey oh yes you certainly will die. Raging floods and burning flames and hunters come with machine guns, fine! Why not! There’s got to be a better time for talk about death. The Sandusky trial no doubt turned the Malkin dinner table into a comedy club with routines on the weakness of the flesh, buttsex with Lot’s pals, etc.


The Princess Cruise liner came in without a scratch

In the dismal aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings (and while death hangs in the air isn’t it fun to read what wingnuts think?), look who has put their heads together and come up with “Newtown Answers.” Nobody. But some folks less than sane and more than arrogant updated their website, so we’re left with the National Review.

By way of an “NRO Symposium” — traditionally a shipboard shrimp eating contest suspended mid-way to pry Pantload’s half-eaten hand from his gob — the Review staff claims it has solved American spree-killing. So this will be all wrong. I’ve gotten as far as the first ‘Answer,’ and here it is from Charlotte Allen:

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers . . in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm.

There go two problems. Women and children. You can’t count on them to offer better than kindness, caring and love when faced with a mass murderer. Let’s remember that Adam Lanza is on his way because killers are always on their way as this is America [someone might wanna take a look at this place --ed.]. You can get some chimpanzee chaperones, or you can fight back:

There are things you can do. Run is one of them, because most shooters can’t hit a moving target. The other, if you are in a confined space, is throw things at the killer, or try a tackle.

Throw a crayon at Adam. Or a kite if it’s handy. Then after taking 49 headshots, tell yourself “Oooh Mr. Adam. What a tackle I’ll give you.” And then you give him everything you’ve got.


Wingnut dodge on gun control: It’s time to suspend the first amendment

Assrocket wonders about the Sandy Hook mass shooting. He probably shouldn’t do that but, you know, dogs and their balls. So John thinks and he posts a post about how exactly He’s Been Thinking.

A logical starting point is to ask why mass murderers like Adam Lanza do it. Most of them don’t intend to survive; their murders are a form of suicide culminating in their own deaths. The impulse to suicide is understandable, but what is the point of murdering ten or twenty school children or mall shoppers first?

I don’t know. Your turn.

I think the answer, for most such murderers anyway, is that they want to go out in a blaze of notoriety. Typically people who have made little impression on the world in life, they want to become famous in death.

Not sure about that, but I’ll play along. So . .

. . one practical response to the school/theater/mall murderers presents itself: we could ban all news coverage of mass shooting incidents. If newspapers, magazines, web sites and above all television and radio stations were prohibited from making any reference to mass shooting crimes, then the goal that these criminals seek–fame; in effect, immortality–would not be achieved. It is reasonable to expect that mass shootings would decline as a result.

Here you have the conservative mind laid bare. We should eviscerate the First Amendment to protect the Second. A perfect gem of insane. It’s wonderful that anybody at all can wield a .50 caliber cannon, but everybody must shut up after it’s used to aerate an Arby’s. Under penalty of law mind you. This is so patriotic it’s practically an Apple Pi. You loose the Smith and Wesson butthurts anywhere near the Constitution, this is what you get.

Hark! Is that Charlton Heston?

I say the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America’s First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows “rights” to exist at all.

Now we have to blow John’s brains out. Try to take away my First Amendment, huh?

Previous - Next