November 11, 2009 - November 4, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
a war on capitalism. "uh, excuse my scalpel. Your
THE BOOB OFFENSIVE
breast tissue is on the scale of Chicago. Or Moscow. Kewl."
Gasp! We do
look at who's
looking at InstaPunk. All weekend, people were looking for our
previous posts about Nancy Pelosi, especially including our posts about
her huge breasts. uh, their searches have doubled
the traffic here. They were
looking for this joke
, which is part of our
punk persona and an even bigger part of the reason why InstaPunk is
universally damned by its betters
Meaning everyone who wants us never to make fun of their own
unassailable icons. Which isn't going to be the case. With maybe one exception. If there's anyone
ever we hold in highest, most worshipful regard, it's Charles
. But guess what. When we disagreed, we were disrespectful nonetheless.
I guess it's called freedom of speech. And ANARCHY
Just kidding. It's possible I've earned
the right to stand back a football field's worth of distance and laugh.
But where were we? Ah, yes. Tits. Specifically, Pelosi's tits.
Don't know about you, but we just can't wait for the chest rockets
on the next traitorous congressional Medusa of the United States.
Fascinating. This idiot wench is hell-bent on destroying our nation,
and the biggest rise we can succeed in getting out of the Internet is
who want to see 63-year-old tits, silicon-inflated
ones at that. And in the meantime, the United States of America is as
close as it's ever been to totalitarianism. I guess Karl Marx never had
a personal, up-close experience with an erect female nipple. (Which I
can completely understand, given what I know of economists.) Good for us. Good for us? I suppose not.
Excuse me. Do I seem to be saying that matters of life and death in
American politics are being held hostage to matters of sex and, uh,
Yes. I'm saying exactly that. Our country is being destroyed by tits.
How did Pelosi become Speaker of the House? She clearly has the IQ of a
radish. Not to say that she doesn't have the cunning of a sly strumpet
when it comes to counting and extorting votes. Meaning she's an able
gutter-level politician. But how on earth did we hand our country over
to this unprincipled, unscrupulous courtesan of blackmail and ruthless
ego? How can we possibly pretend that she's anything but a silicon slut
who sees the entire fabric of the United States as a reflection in her
Sad. Our nation is being done in by a woman who can't bear to get old.
All of you
. You who would
prefer to discuss, and pontificate, and (on
occasion) scream at me rather than STOP this insanity from occurring. I
know. It's easier to be
superior and sound smarter than to do
anything when the life of the nation is on the line.
Sorry. Truly. The U.S. of A. is done. Wish it were otherwise. Glad I'm
old. The only other thing I wish I knew is how to render a soul scream
of outrage in pure alphanumeric characters. Because I'm not content.
I'm crazed. What I want to say is something like
All I can do instead is give you this YouTube clip:
Think about it. It doesn't make any sense. Neither does the Obama
Thursday, November 05, 2009
A Grace Note & A
. First and probably most importantly, congratulations from
a diehard Philadelphia Phillies fan to the New York Yankees. The World
Series was well played and the better team won. I'm also happy to say
that from first to last, I saw nothing but class behavior from the new
World Champions of Baseball. Their manager and players were uniformly
well spoken, gracious in victory and defeat, and true to the highest
ideals of sport. I'm also proud of the Phillies. They played gallantly.
I prefer our ballpark to theirs and our fans to theirs, but not by any
Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about the Fox Sports coverage
of the Series or the connivance by Major League Baseball in that
coverage. The night-scheduling of (all) the games was atrocious.
November is no time to be playing baseball. The commercial
interruptions, especially of the Sunday game, bordered on the obscene
in their frequency, disruptiveness, and length. It spoils the
experience of watching. The commentators were verbose, intrusive,
distracting and (to this fan) discernibly partial to the perennial
overdog Yankees. (Special callout to color man and former Phillie Tim
McCarver, the designated catcher of the virtually silent Steve Carlton:
You talk too much. And way
too self-importantly.) But none of this is the Yankees' fault. They
earned the title fair and square. Hopefully, we'll get another chance
at you next year.
Next. Have any of you noticed something odd about the NFL this year?
What happened to the carefully planned and controlled drive toward
parity, which has been the league's objective since the merger of the
old AFL and NFL? Look at the highlighted teams in the current standings
I know, I know. It's early yet. And one year does not a trend make. All
of that conceded in advance, I'm still minded to raise an eyebrow at
parity we see between
the best and worst. There are six teams with one or no wins and four
teams with one or no losses. That's about 30 percent of the NFL. How
can this be after a generation of a closed monopolistic system whose
rules -- a rigidly administered draft, salary caps, revenue
sharing between rich and poor franchises, and a monolithic employees'
union -- are specifically designed to produce equality of outcomes? I
mean, in a sense, isn't it true that the NFL is a kind of microcosm of
the government managed economy the left is presently trying to
establish in the country as a whole? Isn't it?
So why, after all this time, has it come to pass that the old truism
about "any given Sunday" is less true this year than ever before. The
lowest ranking teams are genuinely hapless and terrible, even laughable
among sports journalists:
Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland, and Tennessee. And there
are a few others almost equally risible: Washington, Seattle, and
Oakland. That's 25 percent
the league. What are we looking at here in a more generic economic
context? A shrinking middle class.
It's also interesting to consider that the teams at the top of the heap
in this closed, hyper-controlled market are there because there's no
replacement for honest-to-goodness talent. They're not the richest or
biggest cities in the league, but New Orleans has Drew Brees,
Indianapolis has Peyton Manning, Minneapolis has Brent Favre, and
Denver has a brilliant (too) young coach. But other criteria suggest
that despite explicit constraints on these factors, size, money, and
cultural clout still find a way to worm their way up the food chain:
Cities that are big or otherwise influential like New York, Chicago,
Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, San Diego, and Boston are definitely
prospering in comparison to rust-belt and low-rent cities like Detroit,
Oakland, Buffalo, and Cleveland.
Which is quite a bit like what happens in the free
market. So what's the
advantage of running it like a damn feudal kingdom? Other than making
it much much harder to get into the competition in the first place?
I'm not going to delve into team specifics or particulars of procedural
history. You can if you want. All I'm doing here is asking a question.
Isn't it possible that there's simply no
way to ensure equality of
That all you do by regulating everything to the last
is change the circumstances that will be manipulated by the competitors
who are best at gaming the ridiculously artificial system thus created
in their own favor?
What might we have seen if there were no anti-trust protection for
the National Football League? If anyone and everyone could assemble a
team and challenge -- like the old AFL did -- the hegemony of a league
dominated by tycoons, executives, and checkbook strategists such as
those deployed by the Dallas Cowboys and New York Giants? What then?
Have we missed an entire generation of innovations of the kind that
would make the current lame fad of the "Wildcat Offense" look sick by
comparison? How would we ever know?
Just a query. Make of it what you will.
60's Time Machine
whole life has been upside down. Not that you should care. You
. It wasn't all Beatles and Stones and Herman's Hermits. I was
just thinking about this. My parents were actually pretty cool. I've
told you previously that the car
was nothing like you thought
it was. Now I want to tell you that music wasn't, either. Truth is,
people in those days weren't anything like what you've been told they
were. They weren't the xenophobic conformist minions of the Cold War
contemporary libs make them out to be. They were actually pretty hot
stuff. All of the the numbers below I DO remember. Not all of them were parental
favorites. But most were songs I saw them dance to. Until the "Man with
No Name" stuff at the end. But in the context of the earlier stuff,
that's hardly what you'd call revolutionary.
Bert Kaempfert. My dad thought of him as fun
The Girl from
. My mother loved the bossa nova. A lot.
Yeah, even the old fuddy duddies knew
Latin music. Go figure.
This one is keenly personal. A hit right before I went away to school
at the age of thirteen. Have you ever been homesick at thirteen? This
is what it sounds like. Next stop for me, post-homesickness? The Doors
My sister had all their albums. Right before she traded them in for the
Mamas and the Papas
And then, a day later, the Moody Blues
My dad had this one. Maybe he wasn't a Cuban at heart, but he loved the
The Ecstasy of Gold
We thought we were rebelling by loving this cut. Hardly.
The rebellion here
wasn't musical. It was about murder. We loved it.
Some of us fell in love with anarchy, which has no rhythms, Latin or
otherwise. Which is when I flipped to the Stones
So who was more sophisticated and enlightened? You tell me.