Smerconish: "It almost seems like" VA Tech shooter "wasn't hooking up enough"
Discussing Cho Seung-Hui -- the 23-year-old student who killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech -- on the April 23 edition of Michael Smerconish's radio show, simulcast on MSNBC, Smerconish asserted, "It almost seems like, you know, this guy wasn't hooking up enough, and it allowed him to build up these frustrations that he might not otherwise have had."
Smerconish was interviewing Camille Paglia, professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, who was quoted in the April 22 edition of the Sunday Times of London as saying, "Young women now seem to want to behave like men and have sex without commitment. The signals they are giving are very confusing, and rage and humiliation build up in boys who are spurned again and again." Smerconish noted Paglia's comment before making his assertion that Cho "wasn't hooking up enough."
Paglia, who claimed to be from the "pro-sex wing of feminism, whose patron saint is Madonna," asserted that "this 'hooking up' culture that is going on on campus where these girls just have sort of casual, random sex with guys and never see them again" is, "over the long run, degrading to women." In response, Smerconish asserted, "[B]ut none of them were hooking up with him," and added that Cho "wasn't partaking in any of that." Paglia concurred, and added: "Also, our sex-permeated mass culture, popular culture makes it seem to a marginal and socially inept person like Cho as if everybody's getting it."
MSNBC is simulcasting Smerconish's show April 23-25, as Media Matters for America has noted.
From the April 23 edition of Smerconish Live:
SMERCONISH: You were quoted as saying, "Young women now seem to want to behave like men and have sex without commitment. The signals they are giving are very confusing, and rage and humiliation build up in boys who are spurned again and again."
It almost seems like, you know, this guy wasn't hooking up enough, and it allowed him to build up these frustrations that he might not otherwise have had.
PAGLIA: Well, I think this Cho was probably psychotic, and the signs of it were missed for a long time. But he seems to have been functional and to be able to get into college and so on. I'm of the pro-sex wing of feminism, whose patron saint is Madonna, all right, so I'm not coming from a conservative perspective here, but I do feel that this "hooking up" culture that's going on on campuses where girls just have sort of casual, random sex with guys and never see them again. I mean, I think that is kind of, over the long run, kind of degrading for women, OK? They're playing a male game, and I don't think they understand the psychological consequences.
SMERCONISH: Yeah, but none of them were hooking up with him. I mean, he wasn't partaking in any of that.
PAGLIA: No. Exactly. So you see all this going on around you. Not just in college, but in high school, it's going on. I mean, girls are servicing boys, and going either -- they're starting at age 10 and 11. And this is a kind of chaos that is going on right now in education. Also, our sex-permeated mass culture, popular culture makes it seem to a marginal and socially inept person like Cho as if everybody's getting it.
wow embarassing!
This sounds lke something that would come out of Glenn Beck's mouth.
I'm of the pro-sex wing of feminism that thinks Madonna is nasty and talentless.
I'm from the pro-sex wing of feminism who doesn't think it's demeaning for a woman to act like a man if she chooses.
Gee, I guess they didn't have Playboy when Smerfy was in school.
What's wrong with what Smerconish said here? It seems to make sense to me. It can get pretty frustrating to get rejected over and over again by girls. It shouldn't make you want to go kill 32 people, but it can be pretty frustrating at times. Smerconish has a valid point here.
Well? He certainly has a point... valid? No. Just more stupid babbling by these creeps trying to fill the airways with everything but what they should be talking about... that is, how to implement gun control and mental healthcare reform.
But, that's fine... let's blame this guy's heinous massacre of 32 innocent people on some unfounded theory that he didn't get laid enough. You're right... what a valid point.
"that is, how to implement gun control and mental healthcare reform"
Oh that's right. Let's just inject politics into a story that wasn't a political story at all. I'm sure if we ban all guns then the bad guys won't have access to them any more. Good thinking. I'm sure that they wouldn't try to get them illegally or anything. That just wouldn't happen.
You can believe what you like (I know you will). To ignore the fact that A) this guy was insane and was poorly treated or followed up and B) he obviously had easy access to guns ... are undeniably the important issues to work on in regard to this tragedy.
But, you - like Smerconish and every other right wing pundit - decide its much more important to talk about unfounded nonsense and speculation. This piece -- and your response -- are cases in point. I'm not trying to sway you... just point out your inherent ignorance.
"Let's just inject politics into a story that wasn't a political story at all."
Someone did already, and you didn't seem to care;
"If case you all didn't notice, Rush was using satire here. In other words, he wasn't being serious. He was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. He was pointing out how ridiculous it was for Clinton to blame him for the Timothy McVeigh incident when Rush had nothing to do with it."
Snap! That's like a little intra-MMFA, MMFA smackdown! I love it.
Ya I guess you got me there. The only difference is that Rush was joking and GreekFurnace was being serious, but you have a good point nonetheless. I don't think that this story should be used by those on either side to advance a political agenda.
Of course I'm being serious!! To throw one's hands up and say..."well... these things happen" is BS and a complete cop-out. You just don't like it because you think it has some bearing on your political affiliation... which it does not. I said nothing about politics...only made the logical conclusion from what happened. That is, this guy slipped through the cracks of a badly underfunded, poorly implemented mental health care system and he (an insane person) had easy access to firearms. Period. You think that's political? That's your problem.
I don't think the incident speaks to any radical changes in policy one way or another ("Everyone should have a gun"/"We need to round up all the guns!"), but the obvious merit of a mental health check does come to light (as if it wasn't common sense already). If he can get a gun illegally, force him to go that route. It's not as if one can reasonbly argue that violates his rights because even mentally ill people should be able to buy guns as they please.
Rhino, Please try to use your head before you make a post.
You automatically assumed that Greek suggested we ban all guns, when he did nothing of the sort. This is the kind of knee-jerk bunk we'd expect from the NRA.
It is sort of trivializing the matter just a bit. "Guy kills 32 students...there's someone who needs to get laid, huh?" Oy.
I'm curious what the more religious, pro-abstinence wing of the party thinks about this. It's quite the argument for sex ed and condom distribution, if going without sex leads people to be violent.
I think it's more that the guy couldn't get a girlfriend than he couldn't get laid. They say that he got rejected by a few girls that he liked. That's obviously not a good reason to go kill 32 people, but it probably just added to the guy's torment. It was probably one of the factors in why he did what he did.
I don't see how specifying "girlfriend" makes it any less trivializing.
Rino,
I disagree. For anyone to suggest that this monster's lack of sex had anything to do with his slaughter-fest is ridiculous......and just more blather and filler for these talk shows to speculate every which way to further their provocative conversation.
As I said below, Smerconish has no freakin' clue what he's talking about, that's what's wrong. He is trivializing Cho's psychological problems so that he can sieze the opportunity to say something he thinks is witty and 'to the point', all for the shock value and how it will resonate with his dedicated slow-thinking listeners.
Is this supposed to pass for intelligent discourse?
Valid? More like taseteless.
Maybe colleges should open a Whore House on campus to help out these socially challenged kids?
Damn young girls get out there and service those horney boys! Or ya know they might get um...frustrated and who knows where that will lead?
I'm just saying that when a guy asks a girl out and the girl doesn't like him, she should let him down easy rather than making him feel like a complete loser. You should always be nice to people and make them feel like human beings. My point is that Cho was obviously insane and did the most atrocious thing imaginable, but the fact that girls turned him down probably added to his rage and made him more bitter.
I'm sensing a little projection here on Rino's part...
Greek, Rino has his opinion, your comments were rude and out of line.
Of course everyone should be nicer to everyone else, but adults have to responsible enough and mature enough to handle rejection and get on with it. To use that as any sort of an excuse, even miniscule, for some murderous rampage, is ludicrous.
Which comments? My last one? Give me a break. He's apologizing for Smerconish's inanity with his own. My comment is mostly in jest. If Rino is insulted... then I apoligize.
But, thanks for reprimanding me. Not really your place if you ask me.
Sorry for the spelling... SEE! You've got me apologizing all over the place.
well, tommy does seem to think he is a 'cop' here or something, he sure does scold everyone about everything. maybe he needs some attention.
You are commenting on "rude and out-of-line"?
Double-snap! ;-)
You are quite the little moderator these days, searching and posting previous posts like some little grade school snitcher. Well, if that's all you've got to do, go for it.
The only one that does it better than you is your "other half", and we know who that is, don't we? :)
I notice that you didn't actually try to claim that you weren't being rude and out-of-line there (admitting your hypocrisy), but instead bring up this completely contrived nonsense about alter egos.
If that's all you got...
I have been rude and out of line with posters undeserving of it - and hopefully I have apologized for it.....if not, I should have. However, with those who stoke their own ego through empty arguementativeness, such as you "both" - you deserve no apology.
Now maybe you can find a hall monitor's job to ease boredom.
Argumentativeness, on a posting board? Wow, who could be guilty of such a crime? That's about the funniest thing I've seen here in a long time. "You were...um...disagreeing! Of course I have the right to question your intelligence and reasonability based on that alone!"
You know your point was unclear, so my post was perfectly fair, yet you reacted the way you did. You don't have the manhood to own up to it, no big surprise to me, but it sure as hell voids your right to criticize others for being "rude".
I would venture to say that one's manhood is questionable when constantly flip-flop between screen names because you haven't got the cajones to stand behind just one.
This could get you in trouble if you're not careful, you just may snitch on your "Sybil" personality in error and really call dig yourself in a whole, just like a buried "clam".
Have a wonderful afternoon, end of off topic diversion.
Watch the posts for anything that suggests that Clams and I are the same person. There's never been any evidence of it, and there never will be. Your obsession over your delusions is noted though, considering the topic of mental health at hand.
Beautiful, Tommy - make allegations and declare the discussion over.
You've learned from the best.
You're ALL overpaid and underlaid.
THAT's the problem here.
Rino,
In Cho's particular case it appears his problems began back in middle school and maybe even further back than that.
And while rejection, whether it be from a member of the opposite sex, or any of one's peers can be a contributing factor to someone's mental deterioration, I just feel Smerconish & his guest were trivializing the situation by zeroing in on Cho's lack of being able to "hook-up" as an important factor in his mental state...
There were far more tasteful ways to discuss this topic. This just sounded so moronic.
Smerconish's comments were just stupid. Do we HAVE to find a reason for insane behavior in this country? Can't we just assume that the mass killing of 32 innocent strangers is an insane act with no logical explanation?????? Can I use more question marks??????
Well Bruce that is a lot of questions marks. I think you've broken a record here :-O
You've won the award...
Your plaque is in the mail ;-)
I think the real question is if a person's mental history will finally be reported in every state as part of the check list on whether they can purchase a gun.
Had Virginia had this info about Cho in their data bank he wouldn't have been able to purchase a gun legally.
And before someone chimes in that he could have gotten his hands on a gun illegally....
Well, I'm for at least making it harder for psychopaths to obtain one.
Oh almost forgot. Yeah Bruce, I agree Smerconish's remarks were just stupid.
Bruce's grammatical aggressiveness is inferior. I've counted a total of 36 exclamation points and question marks on an email I've received recently that contained only 6 sentences.
Try harder, Bruce!
jeter, i know this is off topic but the "boortz attacks media morons" thread was archived so i could not reply to your reply to me this morning. i just wanted you to know that there's one word for you and me: finished.
i just wanted you to know that there's one word for you and me: finished....by mefirst
Are you breaking up with me?
Geez I didn't even know we were dating.[scratching head]
Well I'll always remember you & the good times we shared...all those posts where you misinterpreted what I wrote. The quotes you attributed to me that I never typed. The changing of the subject when you couldn't refute a point I'd made...your delicate thin skin [sigh]
But somehow I'll go on without you. I will survive.
Ah these breakups on line are killers ;-)
did i misinterpret this? i asked you a simple question on that "media morons" thread about whether you thought that headline was inaccurate. you trashed me and then later admitted you were wrong to characterize it that way.
to be clear you characterized it as self indulgent. tommy's words i know but you agreed.
Good point Jeter2...
It's the trivializing and cheapening of the VT tragedy that is the issue here.
More than likely, Smerconish will prove to be just another right-wing corporate talking head.
Of course that made him angrier. However, stalking girls and making photo's of knees and legs is also not a pleased way. His personality/desease would have caused that he interpreted the rejection as very hostile, no matter how the females would have rejected him.
RIGHT ! Thank you for pointing that out !
I love this blame game. First the victims are blamed because they were terrified having guns pointed at their faces. Now girls who rejected the advances of a psycho are blamed. What next ?????
It will somehow be Clinton's fault.
If'n I got laid, I wouldn't be so angry. Explains NASCAR...
Why doesn't he make fun of Cho's assumed penis size?
Because that would be tasteless, completely devoid of class, and require knowledge that SmirkCo simply does not possess. Surely you don't think he would venture into THAT territory, do you?
It's frustrating, because he seems to be intimating that Cho went on a rampage because girls don't put out enough for him.
This ignores Cho's obsessive and dangerous behavior around women (he stalked enough of them to be put in front of a judge for it), and instead concentrates on the women. Cho's problem wasn't that he wasn't getting laid - any boy can find a streetwalker if they have a minimal amount of cash - it was that he was severely mentally imbalanced and needed help that he couldn't get or wasn't willing to maintain.
I hope that is the stupidest thing this fellow ever says on air, but I'm not holding my breath. Same goes for you Rhino boy.
MMFA might need a few new hard drives just for Smerconish now that he's on MSNBC. Mark my words, this is just the beginning. He's a tool, be sure of it.
Somebody get on the hotline to Soros and let him know that we got a situation here! Stat! Tell him a couple more million are needed down at MMfA for hardware and bandwidth!
I just hope it's not too late...
Does GS have a red "batphone" that DB calls when the "cash" is needed and then, like the old series, he slides it down the pole?
That's what the scapegoat mongers fantasize.
And again, because GS doesn't dump his money into neocon fantasies, like most corporate prostitutes like to do, he is unworthy as a rich man in America, the most admired species in the history of social culture (just ask them down at the Union Club).
What do you think of the statement from The Heritage Foundation, that the abstinence program was bogus. The real function was to instill guilt over sex. 1.5 odd governement inflicted US dollars. What do you think his take on this would be? Does it mesh with his themes?
Yeah, that was interesting. Compared to teens in almost every other country, American teens have more religion, more partners, shorter relationships, less contraceptive use, more infections, more abortions and more babies.
Dr. Laura made him do it. Well.....it makes as much sense, right?
"It almost seems like, you know, this guy wasn't hooking up enough, and it allowed him to build up these frustrations that he might not otherwise have had."
Right... that and the fact that he was insane.
Smerconish is moronically and trivially pretending to psychoanalyze Cho, as if Cho's psychological problems were this simple. Smerconish is just another dimwit being paid to talk about things he has very little or no knowledge of.
I was particularly intrigued by this coming from the mouth of a 'professor of humanities and media studies':
"So you see all this going on around you. Not just in college, but in high school, it's going on. I mean, girls are servicing boys."
IMO, Paglia's assessment is that these encounters between students are not only void of emotional fidelity, but they are also one-sided in terms of giving, receiving and pleasure. Saying that just the boy is getting "serviced" implies predation on the part of the male, and subservience by the female.
I'm no Dr. Ruth, but I can't accept that girls are being victimized by willingly 'hooking up', except in cases of date rape, of course.
Girls are being victimized because somehow they have bought into the culture of the ho, best exemplified by rap and R&B videos, insipid shows on TV, and advertisements. They are told to not be offended by the images because to act like a ho is liberating, rather than degrading. But they end up being conflicted ... instead of feeling liberated, they feel like discarded trash. Act like a ho ? Get treated like one. No surprise there. What's a ho to do when what she really wants is a committed relationship where the guy is going to treat her nicely instead of like a blow up doll ? It's a shame, but all brainwashing is a shame.
Will MSNBC Step up to the plate?
And put on someone with a progressive slant in the AM? and stop airing haters like Imus and no Smerconish? This network is worse than FOX, it is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
I settle for soeone who was honest and intelligent regardless of slant.
Here, here. Wouldnt THAT be nice?
His name? Don Imus.
DR, don't forget, your second nemesis, Keith O., still reigns on MSNBC. Zounds!
So a guy goes crazy because he can't get laid. what he's saying-it's, once again, ALL the fault of women. What progressive thinking out of this piece of -----. When will the sexism ever end? By the way this is a male poster.
Thanks for writing what you did, Isthisagreatcountryorwhat.
I too thought, "He's blaming women for the mass murder."
And whereas I was once a fan of Paglia, she now seems to me to be about self-promotion. No wonder Madonna is her patron saint. And Paglia has a few hoary theories that she wedges, again and again, into various dialogues and just never you mind about apropos. Paglia's too vain to be germane.
Rino Hunter, I think you reflexively agree with the righties, however wrong they might be. Your position is...odd. Very, very odd.
...and typical (sadly).
I actually have more problems with Dr. Paglia's comment which seems to suggest that 'girls' (read grown up women in college) should have stable relationships. I wonder how much she can back up with data that shows that more women have 'lose' sexual encounters. It seems that her feminist stance is that women should not decide themselves whether to have sex but should behave less 'malish' and have stable relations. As if the signal they give is really confusing and adding to frustration of males. Where is the data doctor?
Paglia's always been a right-winger in feminist's clothing. She claims she's a feminist, and then attacks actual feminist ideals - and covers it up by insinuating that she's simply a different TYPE of feminist.
Clue bus: You don't claim to be a sex-friendly feminist and then try to argue against the sexual activity of females, Madame Paglia. It's the equivalent of saying, "I'm a pro-career feminist, as long as a woman understands that her family comes first, and she needs to be at home and taking care of her kids and husband."
Which is it? Are these girls servicing the boys or turning them down. You can't have it both ways. Where does this data come from anyway. There have always been women and girls like the ones she is talking about but I don't think they are on college campuses in any greater numbers than in the past. It seems that someone always finds a way to blame women for the failings of men. It just irks me when women do it.
I think another story to come out of this is the ways the mentally ill have been smeared in the press even asking why he wasn't thrown out of school when he was found to have suicidal tendencies. What??? The question is why he didn't get help and not why don't we throw mentally ill people out of school. How far will this mentality go. Will it be used to deny purchase of a gun to someone with OCD or ADHD.
He had been treated and came back to school. As the board of VT already mentioned, it is hard to walk the thin line to help someone and to be sued for doing too much or too little.
Two days is not enough to treat someone with suicidal tendencies.
Well, according to the treatment staff it was. He was considered not a thread for himself, and therefore released.
All that proves is that there is not enough help out there for the mentally ill.
that is not true. There is a lot of help out there, but as soon as the clinical diagnoses suggest that someone is not mentally ill, or ill but not a threat the treatment will be differetn than an inpatient one. The problem is often: you just have to lie that you have a problem.
I disagree. Long term care is almost unheard of nowadays like it was in times past. I have dealt with this with a family member so I do have some experience with it.
"Well, according to the treatment staff it was."
That's a huge problem in and of itself. American psychiatry, in many ways, is a revolving door. My mother works at a hospital, and this past month, she called me absolutely shaken - a girl just a year older than I (30) had gone to the ER because she was suicidally depressed, and her family brought her in for treatment. A doctor took her to a private office, and during his evaluation of her, took a phone call. He took the phone call out of the room and she took the opportunity to walk out of the hospital and throw herself off of the cliff the hospital was built on, into the street below. She did not die on impact, but she died by the time they got her back to the ER.
In this case, the physician who took her case wasn't taking her illness seriously enough. I believe the same mistake was made with Cho. I don't blame the health care providers as much as I blame the system that demands they pay more attention to cost and time than actual patient care.
That's right, failedbelle. They are asserting that women both have light skirts and that women won't uncross their legs. I think it's partly because they're both more interested in provocation than sense.
Dr. Ruthless.
Maybe Smerconish can relate to being turned down by women. "No thanks. You're bald and you wear glasses."
Simple tripe by mmfa.
The term "hooking up" was raised by Paglia and Smerconish was responding to it.
- I'm not coming from a conservative perspective here, but I do feel that this "hooking up" culture that's going on.. - Paglia
- Yeah, but none of them were hooking up with him. - Smerconish
- Exactly...our sex-permeated mass culture, popular culture makes it seem to a marginal and socially inept person like Cho as if everybody's getting it. - Paglia
Don't like the topic? Then pick your fight with Paglia...a self-avowed democrat.
Wesley, some of us are pushing back at Paglia. Didn't you read this thread? I'd rather get it right than win an argument. So, if someone on the Left says something creepy, I won't wash their feet with my hair just because they voted for Clinton.
Good for you...but this attempt by mmfa is childish and inaccurate.
This thread should have been about Paglia's position...but then it wouldn't have made the cut at mmfa because it would not be conservative misinformation...since it comes from a democrat.
This is below the belt and more evidence of the political pandering by mmfa...rather than being a media watchdog.
It's made clear in the MMFA writeup. Read the first comment atttributed to Smerconish. He's quoting Pagliga. It's clear that he's responding to something she said. But he had to put his own idiotic spin on it. Paglia wasn't blaming the massacre on women who rejected the psycho, but Smerconish implied that blame.
Sounds to me like Smerfy is buying into her theory, in which case they're both full of sh*t. I was in college 30 years ago, and those of us on the dorky end of the spectrum thought everybody was getting laid except us. Back then, it was the fraternity "little sisters" that were allegedly hooking up with everybody. This is not some new "phenomenon".
He wasn't responding to it, he was elaborating on it or buying into it:
It almost seems like, you know, this guy wasn't hooking up enough, and it allowed him to build up these frustrations that he might not otherwise have had.
THat is not the statement of a critical or questioning mind, it's the statement of someone who thinks the idea is correct and wishes to elaborate on it. Try again, Wes!
- he was elaborating on it or buying into it - blr
In either case...it's a radical position posed by a democrat. mmfa is trying to smear Smerconish...with a position made by Paglia...
Just more evidence of the influence that comes with Soros money...this is pure bunk.
Paglia's no more a democrat than she is a feminist, and the host chose to bring her and her female-hating self onto the program and to pursue that line of "reasoning." Try again, Wes!
You have no such evidence. A baseless assertion without HOPE of you backing it up provided as fact. In other words PURE BUNK.
- What's broadened the appeal of conservatism in recent years is that Republicans stress individualism -- individual effort and personal responsibility. They're really the liberty party now -- I thought my party was! - Paglia
- The recent filing for bankruptcy by Air America dramatizes my party's abject failure to produce shows that are informative and entertaining and that systematically build an audience. - Paglia
- Are we really left with the same old tired nags and with robo-Hillary leading the pack? It's extremely discouraging because we would have won the last election if we'd had a better candidate than John Kerry - Paglia
That takes care of the democrat affliation. As to Soros and his contributions to mmfa...well documented. mmfa hides behind the defense of "no direct contribution"...when even a small child would recognize that Soros money keeps mmfa afloat...direct or indirect.
Shameless headline...shameless reporting...trying to blame a democrats position on Smerconish.
So she CLAIMS to be a Democrat and lefty while trashing Dems. Kind of like Zell Miller. So what, that in no way means SHE has any credibility to TALK for the left. Try to keep up as I said ya got nothin, this silly attempt doesnt show otherwise. IF Soros wanted to fund MMFA he would write them a check, no one is stopping him. NO ONE ON THE LEFT WOULD CARE. Excuse MMFA for hiding behind OBVIOUS FACTUAL REALITY. We all know how much you wingnuts hate factual reality. YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT.
No soap on the strawman. I didn't say she spoke for the democrat party. What I have said is that...as a democrat...she made a statement that offended mmfa. They then made a flimsy attempt to blame Serconish...for a democrat's position.
Soros funding and factual reality? I don't care that Soros funds mmfa...but mmfa is the entity that has a problem with admitting ties to Soros.
Factual reality would be a statement such as...We applaud the efforts of George Soros to further the liberal cause. We appreciate his funding...directly or indirectly...
Beats me why mmfa staunchly avoids their connection to Soros...a liberal lion...but that's factual reality.
"They then made a flimsy attempt to blame Serconish..."
That's because it's Smerconish's position too, Wesley, and Smerconish is the one who chose to bring her on the program so he could agree with her and put her filthy ideas on the public airwaves, where her BS has absolutely NO PLACE.
Smerconish is not an innocent in this, no matter how much you'd like to obfuscate his role in pushing Paglia's idiocy onto the general public.
- Smerconish is not an innocent...Paglia's idiocy - blr
I can buy into that.
However, that doesn't excuse mmfa for not identifying Paglia as a democrat and trying to place the blame on Smerconish...all in all...a puny effort.
Your premise seems to be that anything said by a self-described Democrat must be in line with liberal principles. Otherwise, what's the relevance? You admit that she doesn't speak for anyone else, that what she said was idiocy, and that Smerconish was elaborating or buying into it. So Paglia's self-described party is relevant how?
Someone could claim to be a Republican and go on Mike Malloy's show, talking about how we should ban the bible (or something similarly ridiculous). If Malloy agreed with that and expanded on it, would it be "puny" to mention that just because of the guest's political affiliation? Somehow I don't think that Republicans would feel shy about condemning those remarks.
I am a first string NFL quarterback. No wait, I am Bill Gates. No wait, I am Bono. I guess my saying it makes me one of those.
Does anyone else find it strange that a right winger should be advocating casual sex? How is this a "family value"? Inconsistency, illogic, hypocrisy...these are the true RW "values."
She sounded more like a ReNAMBLAcan. It was Smerconish' show. His comment stupid, fair game and more clearly conservative media. Typical ReNAMBLAcan nonsense so they took Smerconish to task.
Ah no such a statement would only be appropriate in your fantasy world since he DOESNT fund them directly or INDIRECTLY. Cough up the evidence that Soros gave anyone money and TOLD them to give it to MMFA. If you cant do that then what happened is Soros gave a group some money. THEY chose to fund MMFA from money they got from several sources. Money does not REMAIN yours once you give it away. You are succumbing to that weird conservative delusion that if you repeat this often enough it will magically become true. It wont happen. It isnt true. Your wishing wont make it so.
Paglia's line of thinking is self-serving (toward her own spurious theories)... she's on Smirconish's show and he's adding in this bs. He's complicit in the madness just as she is. I'm not so sure of her credentials as 'liberal' however, regardless of her so-called pedigree. I'm not so sure she's all that loved by the left wing (I could be wrong). Her comments in this regard, however, are off the mark and entirely insensitive.
On the whole... no sale. I don't buy exclusion do to political afiliation. I theorize the exsistence of conservative democratic type people. I don't see them being able to bring any message to the public. I mean its hard enough to find rational democratic talk much less a rational theoretical sub group. Should they reach exsistence and talk stupidly enough I'm sure they'll have an appearence here. You might one day say where have all the NEO Cons gone, all we got are these -ing democrats.
Say, someone has compared MM to the shooter. Someone else blamed the libs. Now these two kooks blame women. Put it all together and I blame Lynn, who is a woman who posts at MM! Heck, I blame myself! And the only reason Cho didn't kill hundreds is because of Rush, whose all-American courage and decency steeled the cops and gave them the constitutional wherewithal to shoot Cho.
Why don't they let serious people consider serious affairs on tv? Why is there a profusion of spittle spitters, self-aggrandizing dolts, and construct arsonists?
Wesley, I can't argue with you about why MM shouldn't have posted about this. I've read all the arguments about posting impropriety in scores of other threads and I can't go there today. No interest. No motivation. Sorry. Maybe someone else will wrassle with you.
No need for wrasslin.
mmfa thinks the statement "hooking up" is out of bounds when stated by Smerconish...when in fact it is Paglia's position. I'm not interested in discussing the merits of the Paglia position...or whether or not Smerconish agrees or disagrees.
I'm just making the observation that this is political pandering by mmfa...it's patently obvious and a very weak effort.
Oh, for the love of...
Even if Paglia started the conversation down the "hooking-up" path, Smerconish could have very easily turned the discussion down a different path. But he didn't. Instead, he willingly followed up on Paglia's assertions just as he was quoted as doing. An interesting world it is when MM can smear someone with their actual quoted words...
Even if Paglia started the conversation?
She plainly started it and mmfa tried to pin it on Smerconish.
I didnt see them appologize for Paglia. It was still Smerconish' show, he knew what they were going to talk about he invited her on, he enthusiatically agreed I dont see how he is not the more reponsible party here. ITS HIS SHOW.
Smerconish: "It almost seems like, you know, this guy wasn't hooking up enough, and it allowed him to build up these frustrations that he might not otherwise have had."
Don't neocons believe in old-fashioned values like virginal purity? Why then, would a necon like Smerconish want a young and unmarried man to hook up with any woman? Isn't hooking up, like rap music and liberals, ruining America? Aren't you supposed, in the ideal neocon world, to have sex with only one person, forever and ever?
I posted the same thought in a reply to Brabantio on the preceding page--didn't see your post. If the corporate media would bother putting someone on, who is even a little closer to the center than these right wingers, people like Smerconish would be called on their hypocrisy more often.
Another one that frequently makes me shudder is Scarborough. He depends on the misbehavior (sexual preferred) of various cheesy celebrities for a segment of nearly every show, and tries to cleanse himself by calling them the oh-so-clever "Hollyweird" and tut-tutting.
Here we go again MMFA reports on a subject of very little social value. Kindergarden Cop in a sandbox of radio and TV.
JohnWiz2, if you truly believe that this is yet another tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, then skip away (Tra-la-la!) to something significant. However, if you're a concern troll, then you must stay, forever and ever, for your concern for MMFA and America might be all that stands between virgins and the barbarians.
More like camp counselor standing above a sandbox of childish, ignorant radio hosts and idiotic TV personalities.
Holly, Lynn please sleep with ME????!!
Alas, I'm a virginal lass. *
* Never forget that all progressive women are so pure of heart that we revirginize, again and again.
Yummy...!!
So I take that as a yes, if you say no, I might just go on a murdering rampage.
No, it's a "no." Like the leading Republican frontrunners for the presidency and neocon pundits like Rush, I can only sleep with my one true spouse. Their fidelity is why they appeal to the value voters. After all, fidelity and marriage are conservative values and just never you mind that the divorce rates are highest in the red states and Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate.
Rather than rampage, have a soma!
Anything for you gorgeous but....... whats SOMA mean? :)
It's a "Brave New World" reference. In Huxley's dystopia, everyone is forever saying, "Have a soma." Soma is the happyhappyhappy pill. You swallow one and you slip into false bliss. Think of it as swallowing a neocon pundit's words and world where everything is beautiful and only liberals hurt.
Since you can't buy soma, perhaps you should follow Dorothy Parker's advice: "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."
Michael has been rumored to be gay; it's all over Philly.
Isn't that really proof he's a conservative? I can't recall a single "conservative" who get's laid on a regular basis that doesn't include rape...
Lets not forget those involving cash and credit.
Why? Why did MSNBC replace one jerk with another? A death wish? Free publicity? Depressing, ain't it.
Hello, Tommy? Are you awake? I guess it falls to me, then.
What is this doing here?
No conservative mininformation. Nothing but pop psychology.
p.s. for those who don't know, Camille Paglia is known as a "conservative feminist". Or else someone else by that name was.
Since there is absolutely nothing in this pop psychology babble worth commenting on, I address this to the gun hawks who have posted here:
1. It you think the relative ease with which Cho could purchase guns and ammo had nothing to do with this incident occurring vs. not occurring, you are in total denial, or intellectually dishonest.
2. "Gun control" is a nebulous term. The policy potentials don't range simply from none to more. For example, if it were concluded that it would be a good idea for more law-abiding citizens to be armed, as some of you believe, and that it would be a good idea to discourage as many homicidal psychopaths as possible from being armed, as I believe, the policy could be designed to do both.
3. No one claims--or at least I don't claim--that any policy could prevent all bad peoople from having guns. A policy change could prevent some more bad people from having them. It could have prevented Cho from having them. Or maybe not. One person who could have been prevented can do a lot of harm, as we have seen again.
4. The potential harm, as I see it, in attempting to have fewer guns in the hands of criminals and psychopaths is only that inevitably, some law-abiding people with good intentions would also be denied. If there were some magic bullet (pardon the term) that would allow any good person to buy a gun unencumbered and prevent any bad person from doing so you would have no objections. Is this correct? Or do you believe that psychopaths should have guns because it is their constitutional right?
5. I don't think the bar for ownership even for law-abiding citizens should be particularly low. You should have some idea of the rudiments of safety, and armed self-defense. Mandatory training may not be a bad idea. And high liability for leaving them around for kids to blow each others brains out with. Those who advocate a gun in every home may disagree.
As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on Smerconish. Has he really sunk yet to the level of Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, et al? If we try to ban dumb speech, as opposed to hate speech, we'll have no TV or radio left at all! Hold your fire until there is a target worth the bullet.
No one is trying to BAN anything. He is just being held accountable for saying stupid things. Its being pointed out. I didnt see anyone saying he ought to go to jail for saying it. When that happens count on me to oppose it.
I don't know if it was a stupid thing that Smerconish said. Who really knows, Cho's warped ideas of women and getting laid might have played a part. Sexual perversion is part of many serial killer mindsets. Bill Mahar has called smerconish thoughtful before and other liberals have as well. I listen to him everyday and he really is pretty thoughtful.
OK, tried to read through all of the posts to find out if anyone mentioned this ...
It appears the killer had a close encounter with a paid escort shortly before the massacre. The woman described him as "dorky", and when he pushed himself on her she rejected him and he left the hotel room.
So now Smerconish can pin his theory on one woman in particular, the escort who rejected the nutcase. Ahh, if only she'd given in and allowed herself to be raped, then he might not have extinguished the lives of 32 people.
If sexual frustration is to blame for this tragedy, does that mean Mr. Cho is a product of abstinence-only education???
See, Rush? Wasn't liberals at all.
Note that the investigation has revealed that Cho paid for an escort one month before the killings.
Also a roomate of Cho's said he looked into a girls eyes and said he saw "promiscuity". And he took pics of girls under a desk with a camera. After that episode I don't understand why he was allowed to stay in school. If you are 23 years old taking pics of girls under a desk I think that should be immediate grounds being kicked out of school. I hope whatever comes of this committee people look at this.
As for gun control I'm for it. However if society chooses not to have gun control - gun free zones on campuses could be dangerous, unless they can be enforced gun free zones.