Smerconish says Virginia Tech shooter wasn't "hooking up enough"

:wtf: This is what passes as enlightened dialouge in right-wing world? :crazy:



from Media Matters:

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, "But 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. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://mediamatters.org/items/200704230006

I want one! NOW!

All of society's problems would be eradicated if people would just stop sport fucking. I finally see the light.

:sarcasm:

I suppose now we're obligated to have sex with all those creepy antisocial stalker guys, because that's the way to prevent mass shootings.

:sarcasm:

JEEBUS.

I fear that Smerconish is unable to understand the "logic" of his own statements.

going to be on MSNBC every morning now? So we've traded one gas bag for another?

:wtf:

:wtf:, indeed. :shrug:

In Penisees.

:spank:

:evilgrin:

Smerconish, on the other hand is a complete asshole.

description includes writing 'nigger jokes'? That was McGuirk's job on the imus show.

I'd prefer a rightwing idiot who does not engage in racist humor to one who does. And as far as I know Smerconish is not a regular stopover for the DC crowd as the imus show was.

So all in all, the slot continues to be a venue for rightwing political rants, the frequency of racist humor is down, the level of guests is down, and the 'gravitas' of the show in that slot is way down. A minor improvement.

Is it that the female jokes are less offensive overall? Or the gay innuendo doesn't rankle as much in the minds of the public? I can't understand how anyone could find this guy an "improvement" at all.

Read more about his views on women, here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200511290014

He's also not a fan of "limp-wristed sissies" doncha know! http://mediamatters.org/items/200604070002

And of course, this guy, while taking Imus's job, was against his firing, and was one of the first to equate his firing with "lynching"--interesting choice of words, that:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/michael_smerconish/20070415_Head_Strong___Guilty_as_charged__I_dont_support_Imus_firing.html

... I cannot fathom how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson became the arbiters of appropriateness, given Tawana Brawley and "Hymietown," respectively.

Only Imus knows for sure what was on his self-admittedly drug-damaged mind when he said those things. His apology sounded sincere. I myself do not believe he said something racist per se. It was a reach for a cheap laugh, not something said to be injurious to the Rutgers women.

Ah, but the floodgates are now open. The cyber-lynching by faceless, nameless bloggers of talk-show hosts like me has begun.

The whole article is pretty interesting. He's proud of his religious insults to Muslims as well! Funny how he calls some guys "sissies" but the sight of Muslims praying makes him wet his pants!

I gotta say, though, I don't consider that an offensive ANTIWAR guy being replaced by an offensive PROWAR guy is any improvement, minor or otherwise.

Sure, not as many people will listen, and not as many people (white, male, Republican voters, by and large) will hear the vociferously ANTIWAR message of the first asshole. There's no antiwar message coming at those guys at all, anymore, because they aren't gonna listen to any commentators from the left who oppose the war. Ever. For this specific reason, I consider the Imus dismissal a net loss.

The loss of Imus was a loss for those who oppose the war. He should have been made to atone on the radio, become part of the solution, lead the charge vis a vis the discussion of race, and reformat his program. Instead, he was swiftly--all too swiftly--banished (in defiance of the wishes of the Rutgers team, as it turns out). Which was very convenient for the corporate sponsors with huge, billion dollar Pentagon contracts--can't have a rightwing host preaching AGAINST the war, when that very war is how ya make yer money, after all!

is neither. :sarcasm:

This is what passes for right wing intelligence?

What's he's basically saying is: Cho went on a shooting rampage because he was a social misfit. If he hadn't been a social misfit, he might not have shot those people. The rest of America figured this one out in about 30 seconds, but I'll bet that Smerconish is still patting himself on the back for this "deep and illuminating" look into the cause of the VT shooting. Way to state the obvious, dumbass!

They replace one Asshole with a Rethug Jerkoff.

He was suffering from the LACKANOOKIE disease, is what he's saying, as if that "caused" the guy to kill thirty plus people. In roundabout and tag-team fashion, with the help of that bozo Camille Paglia, he's awfully close to blaming the WOMEN of VT for this situation. See, they were hussies, who "had sex like MEN" and because of that, this guy saw them so doing, but he didn't get any, and that made him angry! Cue a Frankenstein growl!!!!

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, "but 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."

The "socially inept" bit came from Paglia. The asshat Smerconish contributed these concise words to the discussion:

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....

"....for Heaven's sake somebody do the local Norman Bates!"
.

Smart enough to get herself in the news, not smart enough to say something enlightening.

what a full of shit person she has shown herself to be.
i always knew she was making this crap up as she went along....

If Virginia had proper anti-stalking laws, he could have been, at the very least, expelled. Instead, he was free to continue harassing female students both in and out of class. In addition, it appears he purposely intimidated female professors.

They're pretty good here in Tennessee and I can't believe Tennessee has a better law than Virginia.

Why couldn't MSNBC give Rachel Maddow that slot? Instead they clog up the airwaves with this drivel. Real bunch of geniuses over there. :eyes:

commitment:wtf: I can't even make any sense out of that statement! So if he had gotten laid, he wouldn't have gone on a shooting rampage? :crazy: :argh:

Before I die....
Before I die....
Before I die....
I...
I want another piece of pie!

;)

"Damn it, girls, you're just givin' it away to everybody! Couldn't one of you have taken one for the team and short-circuited this psycho's frustration?"

What a truly weird argument.
.

slutty with everyone. As I said upthread, it's like the teacher who catches the student chewing gum: "Didja bring enough for EVERYONE?? Ummmmmmmm????" As though, if you DID, then everyone could happily chew gum without consequence!

In a backhanded way, this clown is blaming the "sluts of VT" who "put out" but (selfishly???) didn't do so for this dorky murderer. How DARE they?!!!

It's an argument that is two steps shy of "Blame the SLUTS." It's some pretty sick thinking, really.

I dunno. I'm old, and I'd probably last five minutes as a youngster nowadays. But hey, ya gotta realize that this generation is not like generations past. They have different views about interpersonal relationships, and many of them regard them with less 'permanence' than previous generations did. That's their choice, and their decision. We're not living their lives, so it really isn't our business. For the life of me, I can't understand these demands that young people adhere to the mores and conventions of times past...the old "I was MISERABLE, so dammit, you need to be, too!!" argument!!! Hell, we didn't do it, so why should they?

I think the experts call this "projection." Back in college, everyone was getting laid but Smerconish. To which I say....






AAAAAAAAHH!!!

too!!!!

I agree with your diagnosis completely!!!!!!

It almost seems like, you know, this Smerconish guy isn't hooking up enough. :silly:

For instance, the poem by his professor seems kind of troubling to me.
http://www.aavw.org/special_features/pofidr_poetry_giovanni.html

People were making assumptions based on Mr. Cho's plays. Seems like at least some think what you write says something about you?

have a sincere interest in her work and her life, and actually want to know the meaning behind it?


You've never heard of her, I guess, otherwise you wouldn't ask that question. She actually IS well known, donchaknow....

You are unable to put things into it, apparently.

Nikki is an old lady now, but she was young once, during the Vietnam era, in fact.

But then, unless you're being deliberately obtuse, you had to know the construct and origens of these particular works, and what inspired them.

an old man, was he? I find this poem troubling, regardless of when it was written.

And ya know what? At the end of the day, Nikki didn't kill 32 people, now did she? And Nikki was one of only two teachers at VT that called the kid out on his writing AND his behavior.

Christianity and ACTUAL Republican values.

a child???

if Cho had been fucking 24/7, he wouldn't have had time to buy all that ammo, and his videos would have been a lot steamier.

the implied suggestion is it is the girls who chose not to "hook up" with him who are at fault for "his rage" and thus his horrific rampage.

What a frickin *insane* thing to suggest.