[LI] So far it’s been difficult to get information on the question of whether the parishioners in the Texas church where yesterday’s mass murder took place were prohibited from carrying guns. Here are the pertinent rules in Texas:
Churches in Texas may prevent handgun license holders from carrying handguns inside church buildings as long as the church gives proper notice. Each church may decide for itself whether to allow:
Both open and concealed carry of handguns
Concealed carry of handguns but not open carry
Open carry of handguns and not concealed carry
No handguns regardless of whether they are carried openly or concealed
A church does not need to take any action if it wishes to allow handgun license holders to conceal carry or open carry in church buildings. If permitting handgun license holders to conceal carry or open carry on church premises is a cause of concern to your church, Texas Penal Code Sections 30.006 and 30.007 provide clear rules for notifying handgun license holders that your church is a gun-free zone or concealed carry only.
So it seems to be a church-by-church decision, but as yet we don’t know which rules were followed by the church where the massacre occurred. Obviously, however, if there was a no-gun rule there, it didn’t deter the gunman and it’s even possible that it encouraged him. Apparently the question of whether to carry guns into a church is a topic that’s been debated both legally and within Christianity itself:
#2
As a Christian you protect the innocent. Period. The twisted attacker expected guns in the church or he would not have worn body armor, especially a church in Texas.
Dr. Robert Jeffress, Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas who is nationally known as a regular on Fox such as Hannity, Judge Jeanine, and many other talk shows has no less than a dozen police officers inside and outside the 12,000 member church during services. Many congregants keep canceled weapons under their impeccable Sunday Morning suit jackets.
In 1865 the minister and his nephew of Pony Creek Baptist Church near Stephenville, Texas was scalped, hung upside down from a tree in front of the church and burned to death from a fire built below by Comanches. For many years after that riflemen stood guard at the door of the church during services.
God tests his people in many ways, and even though Love is the greatest commandment, as a man you gird your loins, stand up, and protect His sheep.
#4
Possibly. You'd want to be well-practiced and skilled. However, taking down an active shooter in a crowd is not so easy. It can be difficult and dangerous for the crowd around the active shooter. You don't want to become a part of the problem.
By Theodore Roosevelt Malloch
[AMGREATNESS] Women, minorities, and other so-called marginalized groups have multiple champions. All well and good, even inevitable, I suppose. We are all marginalized in some way. Reductio ad absurdum, we're all individual one-person groups.
Picture right now in your mind’s eye: Hillary Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, Black Lives Matter. Hey, even the redone Caitlyn Jenner. See what I mean?
Yet no one has spoken for the average American male in a very long time, it seems. These are the John Wayne or even Jimmy Stewart kind of guys—men who made America great, who are now long gone, left on the roadside, passed over, or passed away. Hopelessly politically incorrect, especially John Wayne. How many times did he whack Maureen O'Hara's butt?
It’s taboo even to mention them. If you did, you’d be called misogynistic, sexist, racist, homophobic, “toxic,” whatever. That’s part of why Donald Trump’s campaign took off like a rocket—he crossed over the forbidden lines of corrosive political correctness. Trump harks back to a more testicular time...
Can we at least raise the issue? Well in a closet, perhaps. We may well be living in the last years it can be discussed at all...
What we need, finally, is a champion who will not back down in the face of progressive opposition—or any other kind of hate speech or disrespect and begin to—speak up for men. Did I just say that? It was very ballsy of me. The writer can now be dismissed as a rightwing loon. Come the revolution he might get a cigarette and a blindfold, except that smoking is now deemed bad for him and one to the back of the head doesn't require as many people. This is what lies underneath the populist phenomenon. The so-called “smart people” (global elitists) are telling themselves that we are going through a post-industrial revolution. Yes, yes . . . men had to come from the farms, into the mines and factories. Now they have to come out of the factories and head into the cubicles and become part of globalized supply chains. But that’s far from the whole story. Might we point out that supply chains have to supply something?
Industry remains alive and well around the world—there’s just less and less of it in the “old” places these days, such as America’s rust belt states. We have chosen to extend privileges to capital that maintains a small, and getting smaller, strata of managers (call them big bosses) at extraordinary income levels, while outsourcing our manufacturing to poorer nations. Which then become rich and outsource them to even poorer nations. The connection between manufacturing and riches somehow escapes the Brilliant™.
And what happened to our manhood in the process? That got outsourced, too. I'm not sure of that at all.
Statistically, American males are doing less well in school these days. Boys are seen as intrinsically bad and warned constantly about their potential as bullies. Men live shorter and more unhealthy lives compared to women. They are more prone to die early and even to shoot and stab each other. Lower middle-class communities have been decimated by the combined forces of the never-ending sexual revolution and by enduring economic stagnation. Charles Murray documented all this in his frightening sociological tome, Coming Apart. We've glamorized being a rebel, with or without a cause. Tough guys don't read books -- probably aren't even literate. Were the characters played by James Dean literate?
Do you remember James Dean’s line in the 1955 classic film, “Rebel Without a Cause?” I was just thinking about him...
He asked his father this telling question, “What do you do when you have to be a man?” It took twenty three years for my father to answer that question,and then not in all of its particulars. He died before he got to them.
His father didn’t know the answer. Fathers used to. They just couldn't express it in a single conversation, not even in a two-hour movie.
Worse still, he had no sense of the question. There were no guidelines to follow; no rules to master; no script to read. Hell, there were no profound answers to that question. Still aren't.
That is the dilemma our whole culture faces today. We don’t know or have forgotten about manliness. It's still there. I'll agree it's becoming more rare.
Now, I am not some crazy, deep backwoodsman, drum beating warrior type, who wants us to go native or primitive. I don’t wear a loincloth or kill my own dinner (though I do shoot ducks and pheasant, on occasion). I just think we need to get back to basics about manhood if we want to make America great again. I'll also agree that manhood as a concept has been taking a beating. Then something happens that calls for it and the peddlers of "toxic manhood" shut up, sometimes for as long as sixty seconds.
We need to figure this out or we will be (are already being) replaced. A woman can go to the doctor and get fertilized by donor sperm and never see a man, have a husband, or have sex. God forbid they have sons—as they would have no examples to emulate. Is that the future? Welcome to the Brave New World. As in Aldous Huxley.
So using a technique that is utilized in the intelligence world (yes, spy-dom), in the military, and in corporate life, I want to suggest—if only for heuristic purposes—four scenarios about “The Future of Manhood.” I used to have a girlfriend who would holler at me for generalizing from incomplete data. She was right.
So let’s do an exercise in futures thinking. Think of it as strategic planning to consider the longer term. On one side (axis) of your paper, write down strong; and, along the other axis insert, weak. Got it: strong versus weak. See? It’s easy… you’re a born futurist. I get paid a lot of money for this kind of heady stuff, so don’t laugh. If you don't believe in strategic planning, Tinkerbelle will die.
There are four boxes on your paper, right? The header is Manhood. Lower left box, let’s call that strong/weak, or “Father Knows Best.” It was a great TV series that I grew up on and it is the standard, old-fashioned view of manhood. Was that the one with Fred McMurray? Or was that My Three Sons?
This middle class, probably non-urban and traditional values/family man is good, humble, but all-knowing. And he is the head of the house, which is after all his castle. He is firm but fair, decisive and modestly aggressive. As a man, he knows both his own place and is responsible for his kinship band—the nuclear/extended family. The man is pragmatic but principled and self-aware. He is faithfully monogamous and unambiguous about his manliness. He is comfortable in his own skin and believes in power and tradition both. That's the idealized version of Man in the 1950s. Most of the fathers I knew at that time aspired to be like that -- at least I thought they did. I was more the Beaver Cleaver type.
Second Box upper right, is super strong or better, “Superman.” Pure mythology, which is another word for bullshit, despite the number of them you see on movie screens today. Probably, like the rest of us, you don't go to movies anymore but you read the comic books when you were The Beav, maybe even if you were Princess.
As a superhero, rooted in comic book fame, there is a fictional side to this man. Since he was born on the planet Krypton and raised in America as Clark Kent, there is something quite unreal about him. With super born-human abilities, he not only wears a red cape with the letter ‘S’ emblazoned on it, but he is capable of larger-than-life deeds. Hyper-able and super athletic, this man is influenced by Nietzsche’s concept of the Ubermensch. Typically, he dominates women. (Latter-day portrayals of the Man of Steel, alas, are as gelded as most everyone else in popular culture.) Super rough and overly aggressive, supermen attack and terrorize wrongdoers and all gangsters, as only a ruthless vigilante would do. Superman actually comes in two flavors: good and bad; moral and immoral. In practice, this box is left blank. There is no Superman, no Batman, no Mighty Thor, not even Hancock, not even a Tooth Fairy.
The lower-right quadrant is weak. Let’s call it “Girlie-Man.” What are his characteristics? Or Pajama Boy.
Although used by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger pejoratively, taking after a 1990s-era “Saturday Night Live” sketch featuring the bodybuilders Hans and Franz, these men commit the modern-day politically correct horror of insulting gay men. This ironic mockery has become ensconced as more than a comic façade. Easily offended and overly emotional, a girlie-man is effeminate in that he is primped up and weak even when showing an outward appearance of strength. There is a fake understanding about sexuality and a weakness that becomes an overriding feature both physically and emotionally. They are like girls in many ways. We used to call them "thumb-sucking wimps."
In the last box on the upper far right we have super strong and super weak, a combination best described as "Metrosexual.” I think they're called Hipsters now, but they may have moved on to yet another name.
What are his characteristics? ... if any?
This is the perfectly androgynous male who is neither from Venus nor from Mars. He is very urban (and urbane), enjoys shopping (oh so much!), is into fashion and possesses traits normally associated with women or homosexual men. He can’t walk past a Banana Republic store without making a purchase. He uses moisturizer. His ringtone comes from “Kim Possible.” In their fitted jeans, with “manscaped” eyebrows and perfectly groomed hair (replete with product), these men are the ultimate consumers and exhibit narcissistic qualities. Neither straight nor gay, they have all of the characteristics of gays and the dress. For them, it is “all about breaking gender roles” primarily because they have no concern for the opinions of any but those who are similarly self-absorbed. Lately they affect lumberjack beards, facial hair looking so much like a masculine trait.
Now, looking at these four archetypes in the year 2025 of manhood, where would you place yourself? I'm retired now. I spent my younger years trying to stay in the lower left-hand corner, but I'd point out that the lines between the categories are fluid. There have been times when I've wimped out like a girly boy and times when I've given in to fashion even though I looked stoopid or, worse, phony. Here’s the takeaway: Manliness or traditional masculinity, i.e., being courageous and direct, or—as the true authority on the subject, the Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield, Jr., suggested in his controversial book, Manliness—being assertive, is just plain dying off. Being denigrated isn't the same as dying off.
The synonym, virility, has all but disappeared from general usage. The notion that an etiquette exists wherein a man respects himself and earns the respect of others has surely dissipated, except perhaps in the fictional “Game of Thrones.” I've never watched Game of Thrones. Virility has come to have a sexual connotation, but it still exists. The concepts of duty and heroism are still around.
Come on, name me a definitive act of valor you have witnessed in real life recently? The Cajun Navy. Any firehouse, volunteer or professional or mixed. Any team of EMTs. Policemen in most places. Infantry platoons.
Is there such a thing as self-sacrifice any longer in the “Me Generation” or its descendants? Certainly, we’ve seen some examples in the late wars. Yet the old-fashioned idea that we are here to serve others (men, women, the elderly or children) seems to have flown away. I'd venture to say that chivalry, even the romanticized notion it became, is still around.
Selfishness is the norm and the expectation nowadays. But these other, older values, used to be the themes of true manhood. But that's always been so. Read a history of the Papacy if you want to see some greed and duplicity. Heroism, even simple bravery, is unusual. That's why people notice it.
In fact, U.S. Army General George S. Patton, who was no wuss, wrote a little booklet just after World War I explaining what it meant to be an officer and a gentleman. He distributed it to his men in the 3rd Army during World War II. Patton wanted real men on the front line. He wanted to beat those fascists. He knew that to be victorious in war, men needed to be taught the basics of manhood. In that particular period men rose in their literal millions to Do Their Part. Omaha Beach -- for that matter Utah Beach -- wasn't a place for wimps. The guys who hit the beach at Tarawa had been hangin' around the malt shop or making Fords not long before signing up. Patton's 3rd Army wasn't all that much different from other armies.
He could have said since the time of Homer the ideas of manhood and manliness have been the eternal inspiration, the very image, and inspiration of the human race. He could have recounted the creation story or the legacy of the entire history of mankind across all cultures. Yet the Iliad opens with Achilles and Agamemnon arguing over which one gets to keep the pretty girl as a slave.
We still have some remote but fading remembrance of the days of chivalry, where men showed courtesy to women and children, where they were gentle benefactors to their communities. Hence the word “gentleman.” These knights of yore saw the responsibility of manhood as a noble calling—it had a theological bearing as well as a long-standing and honorable tradition. "Gentlemen" were a distinct class, however. Serfs, peasants, even merchants could be as spineless as they pleased. The Threepenny Opera's been around since the mid-1700s. MacHeath could maybe be considered the original antihero, but I'm sure he had predecessors. Shakespeare had lots if villains, even (Oh, my daughter! Oh, my ducats!) sympathetic ones. All of that is gone. The history of manhood, if it were to be written, would likely start with some distant, unrecognizable stories about a caste of men who won prestige and honor in battle and at war. “War” is part of “warrior,” sorry. But where would that history end? It will end when there aren't any more real villains.
By the time of the early 19th century, this tale evolved into one about yeoman farmers and then artisans. The Industrial Revolution changed all that. Men moved off the farm and into the factories. There they still made things (well, until recent decades) but they no longer had economic independence. They worked for someone else. The notion of being a “breadwinner” prevailed but manhood was slowly emasculated. The yeoman farmers won Crecy and Agincourt, but they were still organized and led by others.
The definition of that word is, to deprive a man of his male identity. Privilege was stripped away and attacked; even their very manhood was questioned or abbreviated, should we add, neutered? Emasculation involves depriving a man of his genitalia -- turning him into a eunuch.
Today, which of the four scenarios best describes reality? And where is it honestly headed by 2025? Probably to about where we are now. That's not to say that there's not a class of dipshits gnawing on the national testicles, but humanity's always been divided into a top ten percent, a bottom ten percent, and a mostly undistinguished middle eighty percent. What's odd is that the dividing lines are so fluid.
Now ponder once more those four scenarios we just created about the future, and ask James Dean’s profound question all over again. Three words: Flight Ninety Three.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/08/2017 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Excellent post Fred. Thankfully, all of the good, brave men are yet not gone.
#2
I remember growing up in the 50's, virtually all the "men of the houses" were veterans, and we kids all knew it. My uncle told me about his seeing the first bomb drop on Wheeler Field, my dad about holding on to a palm tree during the storm surge of a 1945 Pacific typhoon. I was in awe of them. Dad stayed in the reserves & was called up again for a year in 1950. I was 3 and riding the train to the Norfolk Navy base with mother. She sat next to a sailor in uniform on his way to ship out. He asked (& was granted) to let me sit on his lap so he could remember his own 3 year old son he was leaving behind.
h/t Instapundic
[StrategyPage] On November 4, a U.S.-made Patriot missile intercepted an Iranian-manufactured Burkan H-2 short-range ballistic missile as its warhead plunged toward the international airport outside Riyadh, Saudi Arabia's capital.
Though the missile was launched from Yemen, with good reason Saudi leaders called the attack an act of "aggression" by Iran. A human rights organization said the "indiscriminate" missile attack was "an apparent war crime." Funny, they never say such things when Arabs fire such missiles at Israel
Under any circumstances, the missile attack signals that war between the Sunni Muslim kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran's Shia Islamic revolutionary regime is escalating and their proxy war in Yemen will become more intense.
[DAWN] For decades, Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... was known for its resistance to change. And even when changes were introduced, the pace of their implementation was often glacial.
However, there's no worse danger than telling a mother her baby is ugly... over the past few months, under orders from Mohammed bin Salman, the young crown prince, change in the kingdom, it appears, has been occurring at breakneck speed.
The events of this past weekend have caused seismic shifts within the Saudi establishment. In one fell swoop, the crown prince has rounded up highly influential figures in the kingdom, including princes, ministers and business magnates.
The reason? An ostensible anti-corruption crusade. A new anti-corruption body was hurriedly put together, with the crown prince as its head, and swiftly went to work rounding up some of the most powerful men in the kingdom.
The people rounded up are no two-bit fraudsters: they include Al Waleed bin Talal, the billionaire prince known for his investments spanning the globe, as well as Saleh Kamel, a non-royal who headed one of the kingdom’s top business houses.
Along with the detentions for supposed graft, Mohammed bin Salman had Miteb bin Abdullah, late King Abdullah’s son, removed from his position as head of the powerful National Guard that keeps an eye on internal dissent.
At face value, the anti-graft campaign should be welcomed; after all, princes and other powerful Saudis are known to skim off ’percentages’ from huge contracts. However, there's no worse danger than telling a mother her baby is ugly... there seems to be more at work here than just a desire to crack down on financial sleaze.
The crown prince appears to be solidifying his grip on power by sidelining potential opponents. Soon after his father Salman became king in 2015, Mohammad bin Salman’s uncle Muqrin was relieved from his duties as crown prince. The position then went to Mohammed bin Nayef, his elder cousin. He too was edged out to make way for the monarch’s son.
While Saudi Arabia has always been an absolute monarchy, some form of participation in government affairs has existed in the shape of power-sharing agreements between leading princes, the holy mans and tribal chiefs. However, there's no worse danger than telling a mother her baby is ugly... the Saudi heir seems to be upending these decades-old arrangements in favour of total control.
Indeed, he seems impatient to implement his reform agenda and replace the elder generation with fresh blood. However, there's no worse danger than telling a mother her baby is ugly... alienating other power centres, indeed trying to neutralise them, may actually hamper any attempts at reform as internal divisions are fuelled.
At present Riyadh is at war with Yemen, while its other neighbours ‐ Iraq to the northeast and Syria in the far north ‐ are also unstable. Its rows with Qatar ...an emirate on the east coast of the Arabian Peninsula. It sits on some really productive gas and oil deposits, which produces the highest per capita income in the world. They piss it all away on religion, financing the Moslem Brotherhood and several al-Qaeda affiliates... and Iran also show no sign of being resolved soon. In such a precarious regional scenario, the crown prince must handle internal reform carefully.
Those states with strong relations with the Saudis, such as Pakistain, must watch and wait to see how the power games in Riyadh play out.
[Medium.com] OPEN LETTER FROM HILLARY FOR AMERICA 2016 TEAM
We were shocked to learn the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning the will of the Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate’s health. TEH ROOSHINS! TEH ROOSHINS!
Donna came in to take over the DNC at a very difficult time. We were grateful to her for doing so. She is a longtime friend and colleague of many of us and has been an important leader in our party. But we do not recognize the campaign she portrays in the book.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 ||
11/08/2017 02:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Hillary wing of Democrats utterly livid at Donna Brazile for going public
The selling of books is generally seen as an honest form of income, and probably much more lucrative that a one-time political payoff. Play your cards right and you can potentially enjoy both. Hence the democratic anger.
#7
Weird coincidence:
HUMA is the Harvard University Muslim Association
the vehicle used to fund Obama through college
Funded by the Saudi Prince who was just arrested.
Meaning - We'd love to have it more socialist, under our benevolent control. But since you didn't see it our way, we'll continue to work to make it our way.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/08/2017 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The list of names is of those who don't want to suicide or die during a robbery.
[FEAR]
[QUIVER]
"We're with you, Madame President!"
[/QUIVER]
[/FEAR]
#12
So Hilly is supposed to believe none of them were or would be leakers? Not like that Donna person!
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/08/2017 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#13
#1 The comments at the link are interesting, too.
Yes they are a snapshot of the alternate reality inside the HRC bubble. My personal favorite: I have never seen a team lose so badly get so much praise for a job well done.
#15
Re: comment #7; that is a mic drop moment. The threads that need to be unraveled...
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/08/2017 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Donna came in to take over the DNC at a very difficult time.
That would be an understatement. Teh One left the DNC $24 million in debt after the 2012 campaign and DWS at the helm. Given what's known now about Hilly's cozy takeover one has to wonder if such indifference was by design.
#20
Aside from phone calls and political events that are calculated to need visibility as a couple, I doubt they have spend many nights in the same room for a very, very long time. He has the energizer and she has Huma.
[The Hill] Former Democratic National Committee (DNC) interim chairwoman Donna Brazile in a new interview referred to Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign as a "cult."
"Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough said during Brazile's appearance on the MSNBC show on Wednesday that he thinks President Trump won the 2016 election because of mistakes the Clinton campaign made, former FBI director James Comey and the Russians.
"I'll put it all in there, but it should have never been a close race," he said.
He then asked: "Why did they lose? Was it at the end of the day arrogance?"
"It was a cult," Brazile said. "I felt like it was a cult. You could not penetrate them."
#1
Speaking of 'cults,' the 18th of this month will mark the 30 anniversary of the tragic events at the socialist, multi-cultural farming project in Guyana.
[Right Scoop] Brit Hume told Tucker Carlson something he definitely did not want to hear ‐ that it was Trump’s unpopularity that lost the Virginia race. "Unpopularity" of a populist president? Total, poll hawking rubbish! Please have a look at the swamp map.
Northern Virginia is chock full of federal bureaucrats, who as a group hate and fear President Trump and his people -- with good reason, as their jobs are under threat. Thus Virginia is a special case.
#5
The populated area in Virginia near D.C. is a part of the Swamp. The less populated areas in the hinterlands of Virginia tend to be "Red" rather than "Blue." The map posted by BP shows it well.
#6
Looks like the two graphics are the same. Both say 2016 Presidential, 2016, but are titled 2017, both show the two candidate, percentages are identical...
So naturally, there would not be much change.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/08/2017 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Sorry, I copy-pasted twice.
but the left side is the Presidential election, right is recent election
#8
Turnout was very heavy for an off year in Northern V. which is a donk heavy area
that's pretty much the whole story
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/08/2017 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Trump is polarizing. It's an intentional style, and it has consequences of various kinds. One is to motivate people to vote against him, just as many voted against Hillary in 2016.
That said, Gillespie tried to have it both ways and failed to succeed.
#12
Virginia's economy did well under Obama, thanks to the massive growth of the federal bureaucracy and contractors, of which the state (along with Maryland) are the principal beneficiaries. Why would VA want a GOP governor?
[Daily Caller] Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban gave a great explanation to the Dallas Morning News Tuesday night about why the NFL is in decline.
"But they still have bigger strategic problems in that people don’t want their kids to play football," Cuban told the newspaper. "That’s huge. That impacts how much football kids will watch. And how much football families watch."
"The NFL is going through the innovator’s dilemma," he said. "They’re getting disrupted at their own hand by not dealing with certain issues."
The league should "come clean on CTE [chronic traumatic encephalopathy] and deal with it," he continued. "And it’s not just about reducing [concussions]. Until something’s solved, I’m not going to let my son play tackle football. I’ll let him play touch football or flag football, but there’s no chance of letting him play tackle football."
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/08/2017 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The league should "come clean on CTE [chronic traumatic encephalopathy] and deal with it
This strikes me as the typical lefty "let's have a conversation" bull.
I understand that the NFL tried to hide the issue, but, exactly what's hidden now and what can be done about it that isn't being done?
According to current definitions I was concussed playing freshman high school football in '63. That was enough for me and I quit football to concentrate on music. Football is violent and I've heard nothing that will change that short of making the whole game go away.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
11/08/2017 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It's not just one issue that's causing the decline, in no particular order - a) oversaturation (Thursday Night football, games in London at 9:30 Sunday morning, etc.); b) NFL protests; c) cord-cutting / lack of a la carte cable options; d) this column; e) ESPN & other TV networks getting killed on long-term contracts that were signed when 10% annual growth was assumed without the ability to renegotiate, and most recently f) backlash by NFL advertisers. I may have left one or two other factors but these are the big ones.
At this point, there's been no effort by the NFL to address any of these items. Either they don't think they have any problems or they don't care.
#6
"That impacts how much football kids will watch. And how much football families watch." Being able to play versus enjoying watching the game are unrelated. College football viewership hasn't gone down has it?
Yes football is eventually doomed because of the health issues and parents not allowing the kids to play but that doesn't explain current decline.
#9
NCAA football rakes in billions of dollars, but heaven forbid a D1 player sells an autograph or a game ball for a few bucks. College football is a racket. BTW, disgusting how Penn State covered up the shenanigans there with Jerry Sandusky. Joe Paterno isn't the saint they think he is in Penna.
[IntellectualTakeout] In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein allegations, the quest to stamp out sexual harassment against women has spread like wildfire, not only in the U.S., but also across the pond to our European counterparts.
As many women have made clear, unwanted attention from men, particularly when it is the aggressive, Weinstein-esque form of sexual assault, is never fun.
But many others are beginning to realize that the fervor to stamp out sexual harassment can go too far, and may in fact further damage the friendly, working and/or courtship relationship between the sexes. This is particularly evidenced through the simple fact that a number of young people now perceive winking to be a form of sexual harassment.
The question is, how did we get to such an escalated form of fear and antagonism between the sexes? It used to seem that a mutual respect existed between men and women, a respect which allowed them to enjoy the companionship of the opposite sex. Now that seems to have vanished. What changed?
Author and columnist Peter Hitchens recently addressed that issue. Writing in the Daily Mail, Hitchens suggests that the great quest for equality and liberation birthed in the sixties spread farther than we may have desired. To be logically consistent, he implies, we must allow the freedom and liberation which that era advanced to extend to other areas of life, breaking down traditional safeguards and manners in the process:
"[M]any of those who claim to seek female equality have another, much fiercer objective. They actually see men as the enemy, the ’patriarchy’, to be overthrown by all means necessary, and replaced by a feminised society. They also see marriage as a machine for oppressing women. Their objectives moved a lot closer last week.
This is why many of those who said they wanted equality also sneered at restraint and manners. They claim now that they want the restraint and the manners back...."
The trouble is, it’s hard to regain those manners once lost:
"But where are such restrained manners to come from in our liberated society? They were part of an elaborate code of courtship and respect which was learned by example in the married family, and has now completely vanished. In our post-marriage free-for-all, why should we expect either sex to be restrained? All that’s left is the police or the public pillory of Twitter."
Interestingly, this problem was foreshadowed by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 19th century analysis of American culture. When it came to the sexes, Tocqueville observed a very different treatment of women in America from what took place in Europe. In Europe, Tocqueville noted, men and women were not only treated as equals, they were also treated as the same in duties and functions. But while such a state looked good on the surface, underneath it created a culture of contempt for women.
In the U.S., however, Tocqueville found that women experienced greater freedom and respect (and by implication, greater happiness) when they embraced the differences between the sexes:
"In the United States men seldom compliment women, but they daily show how much they esteem them. They constantly display an entire confidence in the understanding of a wife and a profound respect for her freedom; they have decided that her mind is just as fitted as that of a man to discover the plain truth, and her heart as firm to embrace it; and they have never sought to place her virtue, any more than his, under the shelter of prejudice, ignorance, and fear."
In other words, manners influenced by social and cultural boundaries ‐ boundaries which some might consider too prudish today ‐ went further in promoting mutual respect and confidence between the sexes than did the complete absence of them."
#1
In the business world nowadays you're likely to see a fair amount of harassment initiated by women against men, and in certain environments (e.g. insurance companies, banks, etc.), this can be extreme and overwhelming. You'll not be likely to see much argument by men who want to keep their jobs, but if you've got idiots like me who complain, well you're up against city hall.
#2
"In the United States men seldom compliment women."
Truer today than Alexis would have figured. I can count on one hand the number of compliments I've dished out to women in the past twenty years, none of them in the corporate workplace. It's entirely defensive in nature - I don't need some vindictive psycho broad coming after me and ruining whatever reputation I have. I will not consciously put myself in that fucking prone position.
#4
The most important thing to remember about modern feminism is that it's dominated by a handful of bitches who envy and hate men - because they can never be men.
#5
One of my distant cousins recently mentioned on her FB page being upset with some aspect of the "male gaze". I guess I won't ever bother to attempt to meet her.
#9
C.S. Lewis famously noted that the truly progressive individual will admit when he’s taken a wrong turn, will turn around, and then look to the past to see where he has gone wrong. Is this what we need to do in regard to male-female relationships?
Today, the left never does this. Instead, their talking points go into the echo chamber of the MSM and rattle around.
I don't happen to believe this statement Why Men and Women Can No Longer Be Friends--maybe this is true in the perverted and distorted reality of the left but not in many other places such as flyover land.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
This is what lies underneath the populist phenomenon. The so-called “smart people” (global elitists) are telling themselves that we are going through a post-industrial revolution. Yes, yes . . . men had to come from the farms, into the mines and factories. Now they have to come out of the factories and head into the cubicles and become part of globalized supply chains. But that’s far from the whole story.
Here’s the takeaway: Manliness or traditional masculinity, i.e., being courageous and direct, or—as the true authority on the subject, the Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield, Jr., suggested in his controversial book, Manliness—being assertive, is just plain dying off.
All of that is gone. The history of manhood, if it were to be written, would likely start with some distant, unrecognizable stories about a caste of men who won prestige and honor in battle and at war. “War” is part of “warrior,” sorry. But where would that history end?
Excellent post Fred. Thankfully, all of the good, brave men are yet not gone. 
[Right Scoop] Brit Hume told Tucker Carlson something he definitely did not want to hear ‐ that it was Trump’s unpopularity that lost the Virginia race.
[Daily Caller] Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban gave a great explanation to the Dallas Morning News Tuesday night about why the NFL is in decline.
