Four articles that might interest you

I’m juggling family and work right now, so cannot blog at length (something that plagued me yesterday as well).  Still, I have four articles I think you might like to read.

One:  I’ve ruminated often here about the nature of heroism.  I’m not talking about the Leftist version of heroism, which is to stand up in a room full of Leftists and say “George Bush is stupid.”  I’m talking about real heroism, of the type displayed on the battlefield by Medal of Honor winners (and many who aren’t so honored), or in daily life, when one hears about the incredible risks people take to rescue strangers.  I’m physically cowardly, and I’m plagued by chronic analysis paralysis.  The Anchoress, who is not a coward, nevertheless writes about her moment with analysis paralysis.  I think she’s too hard on herself, since she was analyzing a possible threat, rather than dealing with a real one.  Even more interestingly, the Anchoress writes from a Christian perspective, which adds another layer to her ruminations.

Two:  All I can say is that this is one woman who must have a very peculiar sex life if her mind works this way.  (H/t:  Sadie)

Three:  It’s shocking that Dakota Meyer’s translator at the Battle of Ganjgal, in Afghanistan, cannot get a visa to the U.S.  Here’s a view from a Military Times blog, and here’s the write-up I did at Mr. Conservative.  As you read about this, you’ll probably think of the Pakistani doctor who helped us catch bin Laden, but who is languishing in a Pakistani prison.  The rule in America under Obama is that the American government (especially the State Department) will abandon you if you serve us with your life:  we’ll abandon you in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan, and in Benghazi.  There are no limits to how badly we will treat our friends.

Four:  I mentioned in an earlier post Dennis Prager’s article about the fact that several self-righteous Leftist publications have announced that, regardless of what the Redskins’ management, players, and fans want, these magazines will never again sully their paper or electronic pages with the evil “R” word.  I was especially struck by the way Prager, attacking The Atlantic’s explanation for supporting this stand, honed in on the perverse moralizing that characterizes the Left:

Argument Four is the key argument, offered by The Atlantic, in its support of Slate:

“Whether people ‘should’ be offended by it or not doesn’t matter; the fact that some people are offended by it does.”

Response: This is classic modern liberalism. It is why I have dubbed our age “The Age of Feelings.”

In a fashion typical of progressives, the Atlantic writer commits two important errors.

First, it does matter “whether people ‘should’ feel offended.” If we ceased using all arguments or descriptions because “some people” feel offended, we would cease using any arguments or descriptions. We should use the “reasonable person” test to determine what is offensive, not the “some people are offended” criterion.

[snip]

Teaching people to take offense is one of the Left’s black arts. Outside of sex and drugs, the Left is pretty much joyless and it kills joy constantly. The war on the “Redskins” name is just the latest example.

Second, it is the Left that specializes in offending: labeling the Tea Party racist, public cursing, displaying crucifixes in urine, and regularly calling Republicans evil (Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column last month, wrote that the Republican mindset “takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.”) For such people to find the name “Redskins” offensive is a hoot.  (Emphasis mine.)

Please read the whole thing.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Item #2 reminds me of one of my father’s old stories. A guy is having some problems, goes to a shrink. The shrink gives him the inkblot test. Every inkblot he see, the guys says “that looks like a naked lady!”

     
    After about 20 of these, the patient asks the shrink “Well, could you tell anything, doc?” To which the doc replies, “You certainly do seem a little obsessed with naked ladies.”

     
    At which point the patient snaps angrily, “Hey, YOU’RE the one choosing the pictures!”

  2. Robert Arvanitis says

    Item one — there are levels of heroism.
    First is the pacifist willingness to allow evil, rather than violate moral precepts.  Brave on the surface, but a betrayal of those who cannot defend themselves, who are in no position to make (or at least posture for) such exquisite ethical choices.
    Then there is battlefield bravery, the heroism of risking one’s life for a cause.
    Finally there is the hardest thing of all, to risk one’s soul.  Dirty Harry hazards more than physical death.  He goes into the grey area, breaks the rules to do what is right by a higher standard. His risk is to become evil in order to defeat evil.  And that is the most poignant of all.

  3. jj says

    One.  The best response to a gun hasn’t changed: another couple of guns.  If the Anchoress had been able to look at her armed and friendly neighbor in the next pew, she’d probably have felt a lot easier about the whole thing.  Not having that resource at hand (we presume.  She may have, and just didn’t know it.  Hereabouts there’s a gang that heads straight from ten AM mass to the range every Sunday morning: this congregation is always well armed) she behaved pretty well.  Most especially by not immediately shrieking for the genuinely armed and dangerous, experts in taking any situation and promptly making it worse.
     
    As an aside, if Dirty Harry hazards more than physical death to do what’s right, and God can’t spot that distinction and make allowances, then (A) what the hell is God good for? and (B) what chance does anybody have?  God in that case is just another moron who will pull you over and write you a ticket for going through a stop sign – while the baby’s being born with the cord wrapped around its neck in the back seat.  We have enough of those morons, it’s dismaying to think God might be one.
     
    Four.  Has anybody asked the redskins what they think?  Around here we call them Indians; their skin isn’t particularly red, (as the eastern and plains varieties tend to be), and I can pretty much guarantee the locals (the reservation’s about three fifths of a mile from my driveway) would not care.  (In fact, I suspect they’d be perfectly happy to license the name to the Washington football team with specific reference to this tribe, on a royalty basis.  The attitude would pretty much be:  “Yeah.  ‘Redskins’ refers to us.  You wanna make something of it?”)  They tend to be pretty pragmatic.  The manager of my major bank local branch (who happens to be one, he actually is kind of reddish,) once told me he and his tribe are to be referred to as ‘Indians,’ too.  None of that ‘native American’ BS.  To quote him: “My great grandfather was an Indian; my grandfather was an Indian; my father was an Indian; and I’m an Indian.  Save that ‘native American” crap for easterners and city folks who never met one.”  Works for me – and also causes me to wonder: in the case of the Washington Redskins: anybody ask the Redskins?  Or is Great White Father doing their thinking for them again?    
     
     

  4. Danny Lemieux says

    I suppose that it would be too much to ask whether those politically correct folks feel the same way about the word “redneck” to describe working poor of Scots-Irish descent? Nah! We know the answer.

  5. Ron19 says

    #1:  Brings to mind the book “The Cornered Cat: A Woman’s Guide to Concealed Carry” by Kathy Jackson.
     
    Kathy Jackson, mother of four, has thought long and hard and done the research and soul searching, and carries everywhere she can.  She no longer worries about potential perps or bad environments she finds herself in, because she has already made the decisions and done the preparation.
     
    And, she is an excellent writer.  This book is an enjoyable and informative read.

  6. lee says

    Several years ago, I looked at the mascots of major sports teams, both pro and college. I divided them up into People, Animals, Nature, and Miscellaneous. I looked at the history of how they got their names. For all the wailing over how evil it is to call a team after Indians, because it is “insulting” and “protrays them as evil/bloodthirsty/etc.,” the reality is:
    A) Older team mascots mostly came about almost by accident. St. John’s athletes were red uniforms–they became the Red Men; Dartmouth was established with a mission to educate Indian students–they were know as the Indians. Most often, it was sports writers who christened the team, based on what they wore, something cutesy-ish about them (e.g, the Boston Beaneaters) because it offered some variety in the copy, or to differentiate two different teams from the same city. (Again, Boston comes to mind.)
    B) After that, most team mascots are chosen because they represent something about the owner. The KC Chiefs were named after the owner, who was nicknamed Chief; The Blackhawks’ ownder named his tem after the WWI division in which he fought, the Black Hawks. 
    C) …Or else the team, state, city or school itself. The Indiana Hoosiers, the Ohio State Buckeyes, etc. (As far as the evil/bloodhtirty charge, my home town had a Quaker school, whose team mascot was the Quakers. The school paper’s sports editor was always getting into a little trouble with headlines.)
    D) Team names were often chosen because it would “reflect power, strength, leadership and other heroic qualities.” This was what the new owner of the Oilers wanted when looking for a name for the team after it relocated to Tennessee.
     
    The Redskins name is a nod to the team’s history. They were originally the Boston Braves, (because a lot of early baseball and football teams from the same city, and sharing the same park, had the same name. Did you know there was a New York Yankees FOOTBALL team?) and then, once they moved to playing on the Red Sox* field, they were renamed the Boston Redskins–a play on the original name, and on the new associated baseball team name. And they also didn’t have to change their uniforms. BTW, the Boston Braves name came about after they were purchased by some Tammany Hall associated guy, who named them after… Tammany Hall (which was named after a Lenape leader.)
     
    * Of course, the Red Sox were called that because, of course, the team wore red socks. But also as a nod to the first professional baseball team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings. BTW, the Pirates got their name because of the owner’s “pirating” of other teams’ players. Ha!

  7. says

    Here is a good article from Tabletmag which either has very good articles or inane and truly bad ones.
    Its about the Egyptian situation and the Egyptian writer says the liberals aren’t really liberals they are civil servants who happen to be anti-Morsi and don’t mind a military takeover.
    I don’t trust the line that this was a military coup. After all which country could have 33 million in the streets and not need order from those that can provide it  and are trusted but it is interesting to see that there is one place where people acknowledge that self-interest leads to government policies.
    Its not like that ever happens here in the United States. Do teachers, government workers, etc. ever advocate for government? Hard to say.
    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/141097/egypts-illiberal-liberals

Leave a Reply