February 2, 2013 - January 26, 2013
Thursday, January 31, 2013
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?
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
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
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
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
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
you see the killer's van?! White, white, white!
PROFILING IS OKAY IF IT'S ABOUT WHITENESS. 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!
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
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
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,
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
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.
thinking of her for some reason today. Love that first song. La
Monday, January 28, 2013
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
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
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
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.
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.
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:
"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.
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,
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.