Hoo boy. So Ezra Klein points us to a post by a big fat bikerish dude who wants to fight him for offering to debate Michelle Malkin. Now, I don't know which is more pathetic, (a) this Homo neanderthalensis thinking that it's o.k. to launch a veiled threat of violence in response to a perfectly rational and civil offer to debate, or (b) him thinking that by pretending that it was all just about a friendly boxing match that it wasn't really a veiled threat, or (c) the fact that he obviously outweighs Klein by about 100 pounds, or (d) the fact that he'd obviously never have made such an offer if, say, Mike Tyson had been the one wanting to debate Malkin (come to think of it, that's a debate she might at least stand a chance of winning...) or (e) the fact that this guy goes on to slip in a little whine about his age and health, just to show how manly his threat really is, or (f) the fact that he's doing this for Michelle Malkin...
So, so very pathetic.
And besides, boxing's rather wimpy. If you're going to fight, it ought to be UFC rules. In my humble opinion, it isn't really fighting if you're wearing big poofy gloves and you can't take it to the mat. Seesh I'm getting so fed up with these people that I'd downright enjoy mixing it up with anybody so butt-ass stupid as to even suggest fighting over something like this. I mean, do the FreeRepublic chew-toys have too much lead in the paint these days or what?
Oh, but all that stuff pales in comparison to the following, quoted by one Steve in the comments to the post linked to above:
If I were close to DC, I would be more than happy to stand guard for Michelle. I think my 6′ 235 lb former college athlete frame would give freaks like this chump a reason to think twice before trying something stupid.
Be safe MM. I’ve got a couple of .45’s and a 9mm sig that airiate that sack O crap reaaaaaal nice if he tries anything violent.
The best bet is don’t let anyone get NEAR Michelle or anyone else, until the person is vented, and escorted. No one should be allowed to get to Michelle! Keep them away, and, keep barriers between Michelle and the public, and always keep an escape route for Michelle! Always have a first, second, and third way out should she be cornered.
Those protecting Michelle should be resolved to attack, and disable as quickly as possible, anyone who lays a single hand on her, but beware, the first action could be a diversion, so she should be huddled by those who protect her and moved to a safe location, a location which is guarded to maintain its safety.
Yep. So now it's not just fighting, it's degenerated to the point at which the Malkinoids are not only talking about their guns, but slavering over the details (not just a gun, and not just a handgun, but a 9mm Sig and "a couple" of .45s). Jesus, how pathetic. Now we've moved from "if you want to debate the issues with my favorite wingnut, I'll punch you" to "if you want to debate the issues with my favorite wingnut I'll shoot you." (Well, to be more precise, it's really more like: offering to debate her is threatening to hurt her. So I'd like to shoot you. There. Much better...)And then there's the whole sick hero-worshippy, crushy aspect to all of this which...well, we're not even going to talk about...but somebody may need to meet some real girls... Or maybe not is better.
Now, I like fighting and shooting as much as the next red-blooded American boy. But here's a tip, wingnuts: threatening people lots smaller (and smarter) than you doesn't make you tough (or smart), it makes you a pathetic wimp. And drooling all over yourself when you talk about your guns makes you crazy.
I hope we're clear on all this.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:48 PM
7 Comments:
This crap is why I think we're going to end up with more political violence, not less, before this dark age is over.
On the adult front, Al Gore has refused to debate anyone, anytime, anyplace.
Good call, Al, the best of your privileged career. You'd have got your clock cleaned, and no Nobel. [You couldn't even beat the clueless Dubya in open debate, fer crissakes.]
A British court ruled [read down to where Time Magazine buried it in the fifth paragraph] that the propaganda film for which Gore really won his Nobel for contains at least 9 major misrepresentations. (Godwin's Law invoked here, for the sake of further discussion.)
Ezra Klein v. Michelle Malkin pales. She made her point, that the Frosts chose to buy 2 properties and 3 cars instead of health insurance for their family, and now they're stuck on the government program forever and ever.
Unless Vince McMahon is referee and Matt (Bourne) Damon shows up to get Ezra's back, this battle is worth no serious person's time. But I'd pay-per-view to see the latest Nobel laureate get straightened out on his fictions like how global warming will make the seas will rise 10 or more feet instead of inches, which even his ideological allies find laughable.
[Ooops, right-wing website source, altho its links point to somewhat "approved" sources...]
As for the healthcare debate, it should take place on the floor of congress, not through the half-truths of advocacy websites, blogs, comments sections, "news correspondents" for major magazines and 12-year-old boys propped up by political parties. Unless Vince McMahon is involved, of course. Then all bets are on.
(Political violence, LL? You continue to voice the madness that explains why I can no longer can engage with you. You far surpass Ann Coulter's ill-chosen but harmless-in-comparison rhetoric. At least everyone knows she's only trying to turn a buck off hers.
You, I dunno. I'm still not feeling the love, Loveable.
If Clinton44 socializes medicine, as she seems determined to do, I will stand cheek by jowl with you against the right-wing counterrevolutionaries. But I do hope you'll let me bring my little popgun. Them people got some heaaaaaavy ordinance. We wouldn't want to go down without a fight. Man the barricades and Viva la France!)
1) Ignore Tom, jebus it's just a train wreck.
2) What did I tell you about insulting neanderthals, Winston? Come on now.
3) UFC is a joke just as much as boxing is. They wear cups, small gloves to reduce the occurance of scratches and cuts by a LOT, they prohibit eye gouging, biting, etc..
If it were a real fight, those guys would be in much, MUCH worse shape after going into a grappling match like that. Scratches all over each other, cuts everywhere, blood all mixed together, insanely bruised testicles from all the knees to the groin.. UFC gives the false impression that grappling like that is a good idea in a fight, when in reality it gets you stabbed, diseased, who the hell knows what else..
The only good idea in a fight is avoiding it or ending it extremely quickly in whatever manner possible.
And this whole thing is just evidence that, as a genius once said, animals should not try to act like people.
Mystic,
1. Well OF COURSE I'm not going to try to reason with Tom on this. I mean, did anyone think that Gore got everything right in AIT? That's the strategy of the debater, of course: ignore the fact that your opponent is in the main right--find something he's wrong about. Emphasize THAT. And when clearly wrong, change the subject. The Method of Tenacity in action. Trying to reason with Tom on points like this just makes ME get dogmatic. So I chuckle and move on...
2. But you're 100% wrong about the UFC. Having been in more than my share of unpleasant physical altercations, I can tell you that UFC rules produce a contest that far more closely emulate actual fights. Boxing is simply as unreal as it gets. Which is not to say that you don't get really, really scratched up if you grapple on concrete, for you do. (Nor is it to say that a good boxer won't won't ring your bell for you.) Fighting isn't the best idea in the world, and, I agree, shouldn't be engaged in lightly; but sometimes it can't really be avoided. Then the best strategy isn't "end it as soon as possible" (if that means "end it by strikes"); the best strategy is play to your own strengths and your opponents weaknesses. And that often means grappling. Furthermore, as the great Helio Gracie notes, 90% of fights *just do* end up on the ground. It's like a law of nature or something.
Well, you would think Eric Alterman had put a stake through this absurd *liberal media* meme with his meticulously researched book, but it seems it's the meme that just won't die. And despite being called "the most honest and incisive media critic writing today" by The National Catholic Reporter, some wingnut somewhere will, as Winston already noted, find some absurdly important piece of minutae that he got wrong once and declare that therefore he's dishonest, QED.
But, just for a small exercise, I wonder if Tom has heard of Alan Fabian. Probably not, right? I wonder why. It couldn't possibly be because the major national media chose to ignore him, could it?
You see, he was the finance co-chair of Mitt Romney. I say WAS rather than IS because he resigned after being indicted on 23 counts of mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. Although I'm sure it's just a small misunderstanding.
The intrigue comes when one searches the Washington Post and New York Times websites for articles about "Norman Hsu Hillary Clinton" and "Alan Fabian Mitt Romney".
Well, whaddya know, there must be some mistake, because the results at The New York Times yield 24 hits for "Norman Hsu Hillary Clinton" and on 3 for "Alan Fabian Mitt Romney" and those at the Post yield 54 for "Norman Hsu Hillary Clinton" and 2 for "Alan Fabian Mitt Romney". I'm too lazy to go and look at how often each landed on the front page of the print editions, but anybody want to bet on that result?
Now, for those not prone to dizziness, watch Tom spin.
All I'm saying about the UFC is that it gives a false impression about the goodness of the idea of grappling with someone in real life.
Reasons:
1) That person may have a knife and if you are hugging him, he's going to have an easier time getting it and stabbing you.
2) Your blood will most likely mix with his, resulting in a nice transmission of any disease he has.
3) All that grappling will almost certainly result in your crotch getting railed by a knee or leg, which is protected against in the UFC.
4) Eyes will be attacked, which is illegal in the UFC.
etc.
Is boxing less realistic when it comes to fighting than UFC is? Yes. But the reason I said the UFC is as much of a joke as boxing is because they both equally give a false impression about fighting in real life.
I know so many people who think that if you know brazilian jiu-jitsu and emulate the UFC guys that you'll be unstoppable in a fight. That's not true. Training is better placed in emphasizing how to use your surroundings to your advantage (using common objects as weapons or distractions, finding escape routes and using them, knowing what to do in multiple-attacker situations, etc.) but that's not seen to be as manly as the UFC, so it's largely overlooked.
I'm not saying Brazilian Jiu-jitsu is useless, much as I wouldn't say boxing techniques are useless - as you noted, a boxer would punish you pretty well much like a UFC combatant would.
The point I was trying to make is that both of those contests fall short of reality in equally bad ways, I think. UFC does a good job of mimicking a fight in which neither of you have weapons (or access to any around you), you're on a comfortable fighting surface, the terrain is flat and open, you happen to be wearing a cup and neither of you want to scratch, bite, or go for the eyes, and it's just one person versus one person. However, I'd rather learn something more practical than how to be a UFC contender because it only takes one guy packing a knife to end the years of training's usefulness.
And of course, I don't want this to descend into "Well, he could have a GUN! What are you going to do THEN!?" Clearly we can't be ready for EVERYTHING and no mode of training can make us invincible, but I find UFC's style of combat more danger-prone than the other more sensible training options.
That's it.
I still disagree. I've been in several unfortunate physical altercations. (For the record, I didn't start any of them.) Almost every one of them has ended up on the ground. In all but one of my post-grade-school altercations (a draw b/c we were pulled apart), I managed to win, and every time it was judo that saved my butt. There were were no knives--that sort of thing is rare where I've lived--no mingling of bodily fluids (*shudder*), etc. I just think you have an unrealistic idea of what actual fights are like. Not that I'm an expert--but I've got more experience than I'd like to have.
(Though, come to think of it, I DID have to bite someone on the hand once as he tried to gouge out my eye as I held him down while waiting for the police... Both my hands were occupied in pinning him. He ended up getting jail time, incidentally.)
As for the disease point: hitting someone in the mouth is very dangerous. Human mouths, they say, are very dirty.
Look, fighting is a bad idea if there's any reasonable way around it. Agreed. But grappling is just more effective than striking. Ideally you'd want to be good at both, but if you can only do one, learn to grapple.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home