A couple of weeks ago I saw an article about the NRA sponsoring classes on trap and skeet to high school students on the east coast.  Many of these students have graduated from the class and now have started trap and skeet clubs at their respective high schools.  These programs are so popular that many of the prospective students are being waitlisted and new instructors are being recruited to relieve the backlog.

The horror!!!

Then, last week a story popped up on my Facebook feed.  Actually, “story” is probably an inappropriate term; instead, let’s use “screed”.

The writer was advocating that the International Olympic Committee ban firearms, once and for all, from the Olympic games.

Archery?  No problem.

Javelin?  That works!

Boxing? Tae Kwon Do? Wrestling? Fencing?

Good, good, good, and … Wait!  Fencing?  Isn’t that with swords?  Awwww, swords are romantic, and I watch Game of Thrones… Good!

Just get rid of the guns.  They are bad.

The shooting sports are represented in a variety of competitions, from pistol, air rifle, and the biggie:  trap and skeet.

They want to ban trap and skeet?

What the hell???

I have a more modest proposal if you will:  We ban everything that makes anyone feel uncomfortable at anytime, starting first with public displays of discomfort.

Frankly, one of the things that most married men hate more than anything is the expression of visible discomfort or angst in their spouses.  It makes us feel like we are failures.  Through the power of persuasion, our words were insufficient to alter their emotional state.  Worse, our actions (usually actions we had little to no knowledge of would anger our spouses), in fact, did provoke an emotional response and thus… once again… failure.  

Failure is too much for our fragile egos to handle.  

So, henceforth:  No more being angry.  Okay… you can be angry… you just can’t show that you are angry.

(If you have arrived here from our newsletter, continue reading here…)

Also, I am tired of the politics of victimization.  I am tired of the little collectivists grasping onto the low-hanging branches of feigned outrage because it is fashionable to be outraged.  This institutionalization of outrage and the resulting protestation required to beg for forgiveness (witness the embarrassing display of toxic femininity that Beto O’Rourke engaged in after his arguably chivalrous joke about his wife being the one responsible for raising good kids).  

This vogue display of apologism is really pissing me off… and I have a right to be pissed off!  Moreover, I have a right to demand that others alter their behavior so as not to piss me off (I learned that from reading the demand letter to the IOC regarding guns).

I am also angry about people being angry about things that I am not angry about.  

Guns are a part of my culture (we have defined culture before, and there is a distinct “gun culture” out there).

The writer, demanding that the IOC ban all gun competitions, has made a direct attack on my culture.  If he wanted to ban Israel and all Jewish athletes from attending the games, we would all be up in arms!

(Ooops… sorry about that.  I should not have said arms.  That was insensitive of me.  Please, I beg you… accept my apology.  I swear I will never say that word again… unless I have forgotten about this apology, and my audience doesn’t really care, then I reserve the right to use it in the future.)

Okay, forget Jews being banned… what if we were to ban all athletes?  I mean, athletes form a culture, and that culture often transcends individual sports.  They also do tend to be really focused on merit-based accolades.  I mean, athletes that are top their fields tend to get more ink and fans than those who are struggling to make the team.  This success-based meritocracy disturbs me… and, frankly, sends a bad message to our children.

(Damnit… there I go again… when I say children and the use of the word “our” I am talking about the collective youth of our community.  Those who don’t have children, or don’t want children, this was no way a slight against you… I deeply apologize for any triggering or stress that may have caused you.)

(I said triggering, didn’t I?  That does not mean from a firearm!  Trigger is a benign term that was culturally appropriated by the gun culture… if the use of that term offended you, I deeply and sincerely apologize.)

Okay… so where were we?

Oh yeah… let’s ban athletes from the Olympic games; those elitists should be ashamed of themselves.

Also… I don’t like the word “beverage,” and I never have… It just sounds, I don’t know… European.  It kind of creeps me out, like specially-designed dessert spoons, and drinking tea with your pinky raised.  



No more beverages!  Use that word and I might get triggered.

Recent Posts

Comments (5)

  • Bob Kiefer Reply


    03/27/2019 at 10:11
  • Jeff Reply

    Go back to your old template or choose a different one. This is almost impossible to read. Font is way too small.

    03/27/2019 at 10:14
    • Artemis020113 Reply

      Modifying! Thank you!

      03/27/2019 at 10:20
  • Lauretta Reply

    How about “soda pop”? Oh no…I’m getting triggered.

    03/27/2019 at 10:29
  • Lewis Reply

    The current concern about “microaggressions” and “triggers” is part of the culture of self-righteousness, a kind of social power grab in which a disturbing number of people believe they establish their superiority by silencing others with whom they disagree, because they find disagreement offensive, and because they believe they will find others who agree with their outrage, however unjustified.

    The premise of this supposed superiority (as with all forms of self-righteousness) is the notion that the person taking offense is incapable of offending others, or worse, that others have no right to be offended by them, because the offended are infallibly right, and the offender absolutely wrong. John Stuart Mill deals precisely with this form of tyranny as “a hostile and dreaded censorship” in his pamphlet “On Liberty,” in which he claims that refusing to hear “an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”

    If you do offend me, it is because you are a bad person, and your opinion is necessarily noxious. As Mill points out, “The worst offence of this kind . . . is to stigmatise those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men.” Such attacks, usually leveled at those who hold unpopular opinions, and therefore usually find broad support (especially in the echo chambers of social media), have the inevitable effect of squelching innovation and original thought.

    So, the result of this self-righteousness has been a chilling effect on free speech, and the free interchange of ideas necessary to a free state. So many people have bought into the assumption that I have the right not to be offended, and therefore you have no right to say anything that offends me. Therefore, my right to an undisturbed self-image trumps your right to freedom of expression.

    03/27/2019 at 12:09

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *