STOP
TERROR
STOP
TORTURE
OUT
OF IRAQ
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
"You're Going To Shoot Me?" "Yep, 'Fraid So, Ol' Chap! Sorry!"
Wonkette, writing for the Time Magazine blog, picks up on John Derbyshire, over at The Corner at National Review Online:
If handguns aren't very accurate at close range, and you can't hit squat and you doubt this guy was any better than you, why isn't the body count goddamn zero?
Why didn't anyone rush the guy? Have you actually been in a classroom? They aren't exactly designed for Hong Kong combat moves.
"... [T]wo handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22. At the very least, count the shots...." COUNT THE SHOTS?!? Someone comes bursting into a room firing guns, and you expect people to know what weapon is being fired at them, with what modifications, and keep track of the ammo? This isn't fuckin' Gunsmoke, you cretin.
I'm not precisely sure what's on Derbyshire's alleged mind, or what idea he hopes to advance by this -- that he himself is a Manly Man? that handguns really aren't that dangerous unless the victim is a coward? that gun control laws are pointless and we should all just be vigilant, or vigilantes? that doing badly at a firing range makes you an expert on self-defense against gunmen? that A = Blue, or kumquats divided by chef's knives = dessert?
I am quite sure of one thing, though.
John Derbyshire is a pompous, preening bag of shit.
Okay, Fucknutz. Never mind how bloody-ass macho you need to make yourself out to be, at the expense of thirty-two dead kids. Never mind calling a ban on concealed weapons on a fuckin' college campus "ludicrous".Spirit of Self-Defense [John Derbyshire]
As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.
At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.
Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.
If handguns aren't very accurate at close range, and you can't hit squat and you doubt this guy was any better than you, why isn't the body count goddamn zero?
Why didn't anyone rush the guy? Have you actually been in a classroom? They aren't exactly designed for Hong Kong combat moves.
"... [T]wo handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22. At the very least, count the shots...." COUNT THE SHOTS?!? Someone comes bursting into a room firing guns, and you expect people to know what weapon is being fired at them, with what modifications, and keep track of the ammo? This isn't fuckin' Gunsmoke, you cretin.
I'm not precisely sure what's on Derbyshire's alleged mind, or what idea he hopes to advance by this -- that he himself is a Manly Man? that handguns really aren't that dangerous unless the victim is a coward? that gun control laws are pointless and we should all just be vigilant, or vigilantes? that doing badly at a firing range makes you an expert on self-defense against gunmen? that A = Blue, or kumquats divided by chef's knives = dessert?
I am quite sure of one thing, though.
John Derbyshire is a pompous, preening bag of shit.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
I'd Rather Die Today And Go To Heaven Than Live To Be A Hundred And Go To Hell
It is a coincidence that a friend reminded me of this video not a half hour ago.
Fred fucking useless waste of biomass Phelps is planning to have one of his little anti-gay protests at the funerals of the victims at the Virginia Tech shootings.
I know, I know. Why give him attention? He's head of a church consisting basically of himself and his extended family. He's a nasty, profoundly stupid bigot. Why pay attention?
Because he gets media attention.
Because he gets media credibility.
Because he protests funerals.
He can't let people grieve because of his own hate. Of stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with him. For the most asinine reasons. And his weak and pathetic god needs his help to... what, exactly? Make people miserable? Make them fear Him? By sending an old man to berate them and interrupt their grief with non sequiturs based on his own prejudice?
I don't wish violence on people. I really don't. I mean, I don't wish violence on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of BushCo.
Fred Phelps gets me real goddamn close.
Fred fucking useless waste of biomass Phelps is planning to have one of his little anti-gay protests at the funerals of the victims at the Virginia Tech shootings.
I know, I know. Why give him attention? He's head of a church consisting basically of himself and his extended family. He's a nasty, profoundly stupid bigot. Why pay attention?
Because he gets media attention.
Because he gets media credibility.
Because he protests funerals.
He can't let people grieve because of his own hate. Of stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with him. For the most asinine reasons. And his weak and pathetic god needs his help to... what, exactly? Make people miserable? Make them fear Him? By sending an old man to berate them and interrupt their grief with non sequiturs based on his own prejudice?
I don't wish violence on people. I really don't. I mean, I don't wish violence on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of BushCo.
Fred Phelps gets me real goddamn close.
Friday, April 13, 2007
I Can Tell You One Thing: If We Were At War, I'd Want Him On My Side
By way of John Kovalic, Game = Life, and GameGrene we learn about Ziggurat Con, a one-day gaming convention to be held June 9... at Camp Adder/Tallil Airbase in Iraq.
This is a tremendously cool thing, and I've contacted them about sending over some CDs. Anybody else want to kick in stuff? Contact david.amberson (at) iraq.centcom.mil
Donations can also be sent to SPC Amberson directly at the following address:
SPC David Amberson
A Co 86th Sig Bn
APO, AE 09331
(Crossposted from the Digital Acoustic LJ.)
This is a tremendously cool thing, and I've contacted them about sending over some CDs. Anybody else want to kick in stuff? Contact david.amberson (at) iraq.centcom.mil
Donations can also be sent to SPC Amberson directly at the following address:
SPC David Amberson
A Co 86th Sig Bn
APO, AE 09331
(Crossposted from the Digital Acoustic LJ.)
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Sticks And Stones Can Break Your Bones But Words Cause Permanent Damage
So Don Imus has been fired.
Can't say I blame CBS. It was an ugly controversy to start with, and it's gotten uglier by the day. And I don't feel particularly sorry for him, except in the way you feel sorry for a befuddled old man who doesn't understand why anybody would have a problem with him saying the kind of thing he's been saying his whole life. I definitely don't feel sorry for him financially -- besides already being rich as hell, I'd be willing to bet he'll be on satellite radio or Internet subscription or some other syndication before too long.
I don't believe he said what he said out of meanness, or even disrespect, except, again, that unconscious disrespect entrenched in the mind of an old man who's always said those sorts of things. It never occurred to him that he might be being offensive. And, if he was, hey. He was a shock jock. It was kinda his job to be offensive.
Up to a point.
And that is the valuable thing to take from this whole brouhaha: We now have something, however tenuous, of a baseline.
See, Imus' remarks were indeed vile and offensive... but he's nowhere near as bad as the Big Guns: Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt. Glenn Beck and Michael Wiener/Savage. Coulter. Malkin. People who have agendas, and who spew the most hateful invective, the most noxious lies, the most egregious character assassinations, on a regular basis. People who think that "free speech" is like every other It's Okay If You're A Republican thing -- they can say whatever shit they want, fact-free, insulting, threatening, whatever, but if Democrats do it then they're shrill and angry.
It's far too much to hope that their past barbarisms will come back to haunt them... but it is just barely possible that people will notice their ongoing attempts a little more closely. Because it's not like any of them are going to stop being bigoted, lying, spittle-flecked buffoons.
Can't say I blame CBS. It was an ugly controversy to start with, and it's gotten uglier by the day. And I don't feel particularly sorry for him, except in the way you feel sorry for a befuddled old man who doesn't understand why anybody would have a problem with him saying the kind of thing he's been saying his whole life. I definitely don't feel sorry for him financially -- besides already being rich as hell, I'd be willing to bet he'll be on satellite radio or Internet subscription or some other syndication before too long.
I don't believe he said what he said out of meanness, or even disrespect, except, again, that unconscious disrespect entrenched in the mind of an old man who's always said those sorts of things. It never occurred to him that he might be being offensive. And, if he was, hey. He was a shock jock. It was kinda his job to be offensive.
Up to a point.
And that is the valuable thing to take from this whole brouhaha: We now have something, however tenuous, of a baseline.
See, Imus' remarks were indeed vile and offensive... but he's nowhere near as bad as the Big Guns: Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt. Glenn Beck and Michael Wiener/Savage. Coulter. Malkin. People who have agendas, and who spew the most hateful invective, the most noxious lies, the most egregious character assassinations, on a regular basis. People who think that "free speech" is like every other It's Okay If You're A Republican thing -- they can say whatever shit they want, fact-free, insulting, threatening, whatever, but if Democrats do it then they're shrill and angry.
It's far too much to hope that their past barbarisms will come back to haunt them... but it is just barely possible that people will notice their ongoing attempts a little more closely. Because it's not like any of them are going to stop being bigoted, lying, spittle-flecked buffoons.
