Instapun*** Archive Listing

Archive Listing
February 2, 2013 - January 26, 2013

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Wing Bowl XXI

Here's the NSFW version. Definitely, absolutely NSFW. If you're
at work, don't watch it. Don't even think about watching it. Okay?

SHE LIKES THE WING BOWL TOO. How does a mournful joke become an institution, a bawdy reckless tradition? I asked my wife this morning (at 5:30 am) what time we'd have to set up camp at the Wells Fargo Center in Philly to gain entrance to tomorrow's Wing Bowl, which begins at 6 am. "I hate to break it to you, honey," she said, "But we're not going to Wing Bowl this year." Which will make it a record 21 times that I have NOT attended the most bizarre offshoot of professional sports in this our beloved country.

Time out. Go read this post at Big Hollywood. Apparently, conservatives are assumed to be deaf and blind to the coarsening of popular culture, and we need to spend more of our righteous time investigating the media incarnations of our decline into moral turpitude. You know. Duty calls. Even though conservatives have an intrinsic aversion to T&A (whatever that is), we have to man up, so to speak, and inform ourselves about all the bad stuff that's going on out there. So we can evangelize the fallen at the water cooler in terms they understand. Even if that means yanking our attention away from our favorite fare at Nickelodeon and the Gospel Music Channel*. All righty, then. Here's my contribution.

Wing Bowl. The brainchild of a WIP SportsTalk sidekick who loves hockey more than life itself and despite his gray hairs has the mind (on good days) of a 9-year-old boy. Back in 1992, when it began to dawn on Philadelphians that they hadn't won an NFL Championship since 1960, he proposed that Super Bowl Week, which was perpetually meaningless in Philly, should be reinvigorated with a local alternative that people could actually look forward to. It should be every bit as hyped and silly and overblown as the Super Bowl itself. It should feature some sporting type competition. And it should have many more breasts. Thus was this curious, bizarre event born.

The excuse is an eating contest. Who can eat the most chicken wings? Ah, the power of radio. Driven by the genius of Angelo Cataldi (possibly the most charismatic radio personality in the nation), the Wing Bowl became a reality. Fat, disgusting gluttons who auditioned by eating enormous amounts of food on the radio, Buxom, nubile girls who auditioned for the role of "Wingette" by wearing bikini tops on the radio. The event itself exceeded the hype. Contestants entered the arena on comically amateurish floats. The booze started flowing at 6 am. The Wingettes were happy to flash the crowd because breasts are the lingua franca of civilized society or its Philadelphia approximation. It can't be, and never has been, televised, because the camera's eye keeps stubbing its lens on, you know, boobs.

Philadelphia gets a perennial bad rap as a sports town. They booed Santa Claus, as every ESPN announcer can't stop reminding us as if in the grip of a nervous tic. But there have been 20 Wing Bowls to date, and what's missing from the record is shootings, stabbings, beatings, and felonies of any sort. The event itself is outrageous, stupid, and gross. Should the guardians of public morality be offended? No.

Yes, I get tired of Angelo Cataldi slobbering over the scantily covered breasts of strippers who want to be Wingettes. Don't want to hear the play by play of candidate eaters consuming 80 shrimp in two minutes to earn a spot in the Wing Bowl eating competition. But I can turn it off when I've heard too much. As for the event itself, I approve.

Yes, I approve. It's a one-day Mardi Gras in Philadelphia. It's also a humorous response to an ache that afflicts the whole Delaware Valley. Despite their many great accomplishmnents, the Philadelphia Eagles have been a disappointment on the same level as the Boston Red Sox to their faithful (until they finally won). The Wing Bowl is an exceptionally clever palliative. Turn your weakness into a strength. WHat could be more American?

Do I object to the burlesque of exposed breasts at Wing Bowl? No. I'm all in favor of exposed breasts, especially when they don't result in rapes, abortions, and other crimes. Maybe I'm not a conservative? After 10 years of posting, you get to make that call yourself.

Wing Bowl XXI happens tomorrow. Check YouTube for a glimpse of what happens there. ESPN sure won't be covering it.

*Gospel Music Channel. Here's something that cheesed me off. Saw a movie at GMC and looked up the user reviews. This one is really over the top:

Know that it is religious, 2 January 2011

Author: guidecca from Virginia Beach

My wife and I sat down on a Saturday night thinking that the film would be action, drama, or comedy. We didn't know that it was an experience in religion. Whether based on facts or not the story is not believable. Yes, it will pull you in as would any story about the loss of a child but this B rated, direct to DVD movie should be avoided. If you are a devout Christian you will love this amateurish production, maybe.

This film is all about preaching god to you and trying to get you to believe in god. I am annoyed that this kind of film is allowed in the main-stream and that such a film can be put upon so many innocent viewers. I'm sure this is just the beginning of the video invasion of more of the same...

Liberals. Tolerant. Except when they want to shut you down for your perverted, disgusting beliefs. Love the way they regard themselves as "innocents." But that's a whole other post.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

White Truck Control

Did you see the killer's van?! White, white, white!

. Let me start with a compelling statistic. In 38.8 percent of the episodes of Criminal Minds, the serial killer the BAU is chasing drives a white pickup truck, white van, or white SUV.† Fact. You know how all their profiles begin, "a white male between the ages of 25 and 55?" They might as well add to their boilerplate "and is probably driving a white van or pickup." And the white truck crowd isn't just confined to serial killers. Rapists, child predators, and mad bombers of every description are moving invisibly through our midst in these dastardly vehicles, which are too numerous to contain without massive legislative action. As a people, as a nation, as a bunch of hysterical, irrational crybabies smart, sensitive parents of all ethnic and sexual persuasions, we need to DO something about this. Immediately.

Just look at this!

And this!

This last one is particularly disturbing. What if OJ hadn't had a white Bronco? Maybe he'd have thought twice before pulling up at Nicole's door and slaughtering her and that other guy. If the Bronco had been some bright primary color neighbors would remember, he might have ditched his whole plan. Did you ever think about that? Did you? Typical thoughtless idiots...

I know. People will say white trucks don't kill people. Their drivers do. But what if they couldn't get white trucks in the first place? Wouldn't that make us all safer?

You bet it would. We need a law. We need to pass it yesterday. And, yeah, I know Ted Bundy did his dirty work with a beige VW beetle. But they don't make those anymore. (Well, not the kind he used, old and phlegmy sounding.) We can't be fighting for our kids' lives with the tools of the past. We need to be right now. And the facts about white trucks couldn't be anymore right now than they are, uh, right now.

Hopefully, one of you will start a website and call a congressman. I have a new suit that will look perfect on the Piers Morgan Show. Let me at him. I have exactly the kinds of facts he likes.

Let's DO this thing!

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Englishmen in America

WE DON'T NORMALLY LIKE THEM. A day off from beating ourselves up. Do yourselves this favor. As our president tries to make us more like Europe, ask yourselves why Englishmen keep coming here to indulge their fascination with this country that so many on the far side of the Atlantic claim to hate: Stuart Varney, Tony Blankley, Mark Steyn, John Derbyshire, and even Christopher Hitchens and Piers Morgan. God only knows how many Brit actors and musicians are now living in New York or Los Angeles. They're here, aren't they? What's the attraction? I'll explain.

Lord knows, the Brit-centric Top Gear crew have been haunting our shores for years. Lead host Jeremy Clarkson (contradictorily an advocate of quality not government enterprise) has made a cottage industry of bashing America, American cars, and all the American geography that doesn't have a counterpart in England, Scotland, or Wales. Yes, we've had a love-hate relationship with Clarkson for a long long time. But his co-hosts aren't quite the same in their views of the colonies. James May did a series in California wine country that hinted at an affinity with us colonial commoners. Richard Hammond has done May one better with his Crash Course series (available On Demand), which displays a, well, love of things American. The first year focused on heavy equipment, which one could probably dismiss because America has more heavy equipment than anyone else. Year 2, however, has been a revelation. Hammond is here because he loves not just heavy equipment America but America itself. His episode on trying to become a cowboy was a revelation. The Youtube teasers, which you've seen if you took the link, are misleadingly focused on comic misadventures. The final segment shows an heir of one of Sam Houston's original 8 Texas families doing the everyday horse-whispering mythologized (and tediously mystified) by Robert Redford. While Hammond watches in awe, the Texan takes a wild horse cut from her herd gentled, saddled, and ridden in about one hour of elapsed time. Hammond, who does have experience with horses, is blown away and so are we. In other shows, he drives a New York City cab, does standup in the fiercest of NYC comedy clubs, tries out as a rodeo clown for bullriders (fail), learns how to do "paddle-boarding" in Hawaii for a scary river race in the Pacific northwest, and apprentices as a barber in Harlem. The upshot? Hammond is head over heels in love with America. It would seem that all his BIGGEST fantasies and fears are located here. Why here? Because we're just bigger and more various and more free. England, after all, is about the same size as the State of New York.

Which we learn from the real gem of this post, Stephen Fry in America. Stumbled on this series on Netflix today. First time I've felt able to breathe since November. The premise is that in six one-hour episodes, Stephen Fry, known to those who follow such things as the superhero valet Jeeves, will traverse all 50 states in a London cab, which is what he drives back in England. Of course, no state gets its due, but that's not really the point. Fry is out to show America to England, and he has the easy and open manner to do exactly that. He's not looking down or up. Although the sheer geographical and human diversity of the American landscape frequently leaves him breathless. He starts in Maine, where he learns from fishermen how to put a lobster into a trance, and works his way from the northeast -- via Cambridge MA, where he has tea with the dean of the Harvard Divinity School, upstate New York, where he learns how to cover his hunting camo with deer poo, NYC, where he meets real mafiosi, and Atlantic City, where he learns how to deal blackjack, etc -- to the Deep South, where he finds remnants of the original Mason-Dixon Line, ventures into the bowels of a West Virginia coal mine, visits Kentucky thoroughbred farms ("the most expensive pimping operation in the world") and bourbon distilleries ("I think I need a lie-down now"), almost throws up at a body farm at the University of Tennessee and learns that "you people talk funny" in a bluegrass music jam... Etc, etc, etc.

It's an astonishing show. Fry is just alien enough to make us see ourselves from a different perspective, meaning a new perspective as opposed to our easy generalities about ourselves. He doesn't hate the ostentation of the robber baron "camps" in the Adirondacks or their "cottages" in Newport, Rhode Island. It's clear that he's seeking the beating heart of American aspiration and individuality, which he finds everywhere he goes. His one appointment in Washington, DC, is with the founder of Wikipedia, who recasts the American Dream as the desire to leave something worthwhile behind. Because Wikipedia is worldwide but nonprofit, and its founder is not rich. Then he moves on to the next state, the next set of wonderful Americans.

In his London cab. Which he gets serviced in a Manhattan taxi barn. Where there's a guy who knows where the dipstick is.

Well, enough. I found this show on Netflix. Find it however you can. It WILL make your day.


Just thinking of her for some reason today. Love that first song. La Vie.


Monday, January 28, 2013

Axe Work

The American tree is much much bigger. But it can still be felled by
legions of axemen working in concert to sever the trunk. Timber!!!!

. The previous post identified one area in which fundamental American values are being eclipsed by the false-flag appeal to egalitarian principles. Its argumentation drew some noteworthy objections. The subject was women in combat. I opposed it utterly, mostly on the grounds that the idea was so thoroughly wrong as to be obviously idiotic. I should have remembered that proving the obvious is the most impossible of all tasks, because I've written about the problem before. The more absurd an idea, the more fanatical its adherents: i.e., Castro is admirable, the twin towers were not leveled by planes but government-sponsored implosions, and sweeping gun controls on law-abiding citizens reduce violent crime. In each of these cases, the facts are so completely and directly opposed to the corresponding delusions that logic has no role to play. Mere facts can't bridge the gigantic gap between rational and irrational conviction that has to be closed to ensure a worthwhile debate.

This is not a "Women in Combat, Part II" post. It's more than that. It's about a pattern of assaults on American verities that are also, not coincidentally, human verities. It's about the scale of those assaults, who's most to blame for them, and the ways even smart people get confused in their thinking without being aware of how they're being manipulated. The women in combat issue is simply the introductory example.

Eternal skeptic/nitpicker Helk stuffed the entire Wiki entry about female combatants in the Israeli Defense Force into our Comments section (a technical feat of some measure I'm sure). When I suggested that this might not be an objective report, he paraphrased my response in dismissive terms:

OK. So what I read from what you just write is that the Israeli's are making the best of a bad situation and the women are not actually effective in the military role but are advertised as such because Israel needs to conflate reality in order to intimidate its neighbors.

Is that about right?

Esteemed veteran Bill also objected based on traumatic personal experience:

The whole argument misses the point. It's not whether or not a woman can carry a load or shoot a rifle. It's about KILLING.

I killed my first man in combat when I was nineteen years old. Two tours in the infantry in Vietnam allowed me to kill sixteen more. I see their faces and remember each and every one almost fifty years later.

Most men who have seen combat don't talk about it, and that's why. All this bullshit about the glory and honor is just that:bullshit.

The argument is about whether or not we want our sisters and daughters to become killers too. That's a real fucking sweet legacy for some grandmother to remember down the road.

Add these to ErisGuy, who descended later [yes, in the prior post] with a scornful comment saying, in essence, the American people deserve what they get, no matter the issue:

"When Obama took the oath for the second time, your children's lives were dimmed and reduced.Ē

And itís been a long time cominí, and the American people voted for it every step of the way. It is the culmination of their dreams.

None of this was imposed by conquest; nor were people tricked into it. They examined the arguments, looked at the evidence, and the majority of American people agreed: their soldiers were child-raping mass murderers; all white people are racists; all men are rapists; etc. etc.

Great stuff, right? What blogs thrive on. Disputes among the mostly like-minded. Thing is, they're all wrong and to some extent wrong-headed, because the real malefactors have succeeded in getting us to cross swords with one another on a topic that is dead obvious, slam dunk, and not worthy of a moment's debate. Here's what a female veteran had to say (h/t Hotair), which I'll only excerpt because a lot of her argument simply anticipated my own:

Iím a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5í6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking menís lives so I can live my selfish dream.

Weíre not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isnít an issue of ďif a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.Ē The number of women that can meet the male standard will be minisculeĖIíd have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY meĖand that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit...

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesnít trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?...

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether itís the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she canít absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I donít care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. Thatís why we donít let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they donít abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and donít google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I couldíve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think Iím mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldnít be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

Let me add one extra bit of information:

A new Gallup poll shows that 74 percent of Americans would vote to allow women to serve in direct combat positions; just 20 percent of Americans would oppose such a law. There was virtually no gender gap; 76 percent of women supported such a move, while 73 percent of men did as well. Both Democrats and Republicans supported opening up combat jobs to women, with 83 percent of Democrats behind the proposition, as well as 70 percent of Republicans.

Why the appearance of controversy in the last post is one more absurdity piled on top of the obvious. I appreciate Bill's argument, which is no doubt strong on the personal merits, but it pales beside the fact that this is the taking of an axe to foundational American and human values. Which is the whole point of it. With all due respect to Bill, history provides abundant evidence that women can be killers. What we cannot accept is for them to be victims on male watch. The attempt to override thousands of years of civilization in the name of a phony egalitarian ideal whose proponents have no expectation of being called on it themselves smacks of the very worst kind of elitism.

ErisGuy is wrong in a whole other way. His contention that Americans "examined the evidence... and the majority of Americans agreed" is ludicrous. Our access to the reality of combat is, and has always been, censored in the extreme by the mass media. Before the left took over, the media didn't want women to be subjected to the horrors of war. War movies made death on the battlefield a sad or poetic thing rather than an explosion of burst intestines and fried faces. After the left took over, the media didn't want any civilian to see the nature of the violence their troops were combating. Footage of suicides from the twin towers disappeared. Footage of Islamic beheadings -- knives sawing off heads of screaming civilians -- disappeared. Coverage of Islamic honor killings against female family member victims shamed by rape -- uh, nil. Although we were inundated with photos of the bloodless humiliations at Abu Ghraib, and we also got mucho documentaries about the soldier-victims whose limbs and faces had been destroyed by "resistance fighters" in a war we should never have fought.

All these sins of commission and omission are a function of the mass media. The assertion that Americans have "examined the arguments" is outrageous. Yes, I can make a case that Obama is a villain, and he is, but not the most important, not the critical one. The game-changer is not a megalomaniac promoted past his abilities. It's a press that has become part of the power structure, the celebrity culture, the seditious institutional traitor which seeks to destroy us in the name of saving us from ourselves. People who make millions of dollars a year and swap canapes with the ultimately powerful DC movers and shakers who pretend to care about us little folk. But why shouldn't we believe them? We've been taught to believe that multi-multi-millionaires whose faces we admire love us and care for us, even though most of them are high school dropouts with no knowledge whatever of economics, foreign policy, warfare (except for their stuntmen friends), or living paycheck to paycheck. Taught. Propagandized. Continually celebrated and promoted as "intelligent."

While the axemen continue their assault. Since the inauguration, the axes are letting the chips fly. Women in combat is one axe. Gun control is another. Here's just a sampling of the explosion of axe work that has been initiated since the election:

CBS runs segment called "Giving up on the Constitution."

Because we're smarter than everything they were and whatever you might believe in that's older than Obama.

Abortion takes a life? So what?

Nobody cares enough anymore, meaning we can finally defeat The Magic Doorway. Infanticide really is on the table now.

Obama seeks gun control by edict and wants armed guards for life.

Next, he'll want a third term....

Obama cracking down on irresponsible behavior.

What we need. Honestly. A president who knows what responsible behavior is. Especially since he knows who the enemies of freedom are. By name.

Obama: Change coming to NFL to reduce violence.

"And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence," Obama said. "In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much."

The glorious future of the NFL? Last night's Pro Bowl. Some contact, some laughs, great entertainment. NFL WWE wrestling style. Can't wait. The new America. No real competition. Just celebrities showing off for us, the ticket payers.

Good News? The fearless press holds the president's feet to the fire on Benghazi.

Well. Maybe not this time. But next time. (What can you do? El Presidente thinks Benghazi is just funny.) Maybe when a corrupt Democratic senator is on the firing line. No? Oh.

Hack hack hack hack hack hack. Enough for now. Where everybody is wrong but me. Why I'm so mad at one Robert Whitcomb, who was raised and educated to know better. The axemen are working, working, working, working.†

Want to stop something Helk? Stop them. Destroy them. Don't beguile yourself with nonsense about double reverse psychology. Just go wipe out the careers of the people who are deciding what the stories are, what stories not to tell, and who to kill.

I want to kill them.

Back to Archive Index

Amazon Honor System Contribute to Learn More