God, the previous entry I thought was bad enough, but this one is about 3 times better.
I'm writing this not just for humorous purposes for the guys, but more importantly for the younger women out there who are now facing the fork in the road as to whether to take the modern day feminist route or a more traditional route. Admittedly, it isn't a black and white choice, you can work and be a housewife. Nobody says you can't be come an engineer. But I'm talking more about how you're going to interact with men and what is ultimately going to lead to your happiness. You want to take the feminist fork in the road, this is where it leads.
Sheesh! Now I know why tigers eat their young!
Friday, February 17, 2012
The Finalized Product of Feminism
I am not 100% sure if this is genuine or if she is merely mocking feminism/academia. But if it is genuine, it wouldn't surprise me. 62 year old woman looking for a "mindmate." No pictures because you shallow slobs should find her attractive for her inner beauty (again adhering to my female sexual centrism observation), and she has her masters degree (presumably in something that avoids math like the plague).
Regardless, the whole point of this post is to highlight where the road of feminism leads. THis is it ladies. A woman who is nearly dead, alone and, frankly, sounds about as exciting to hang out with as Buzz Killington.
Regardless, the whole point of this post is to highlight where the road of feminism leads. THis is it ladies. A woman who is nearly dead, alone and, frankly, sounds about as exciting to hang out with as Buzz Killington.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
I Can't Outdate God
The only thing better than a train wreck is when two trains collide.
The only thing better than that is when THREE collide!
Thus why I have a macabre fascination watching these three trains collide:
1. Religion
2. Feminism
3. Human nature.
Don't worry, the lord will provide.
The only thing better than that is when THREE collide!
Thus why I have a macabre fascination watching these three trains collide:
1. Religion
2. Feminism
3. Human nature.
Don't worry, the lord will provide.
Yes, You May Write Reviews
People have asked me if they can write reviews of my book, "Worthless." Which is odd, because, well yes, how could I stop you?
So yes my fine Cappy Cappites, go forth and write reviews! Just click on the link above and share your opinions with the world....also refer it to 3,000 of your friends.
So yes my fine Cappy Cappites, go forth and write reviews! Just click on the link above and share your opinions with the world....also refer it to 3,000 of your friends.
Why Breakfast Food?
Permit my mind a very bachelor-like wandering.
It was 9AM, I was hungry, and I didn't know how to cook (still don't).
I didn't want a biscuit. I didn't want a breakfast sausage. I didn't want pancakes. I wanted one thing:
a Chipolte fajita drowning in Tabasco Sauce.
But I couldn't have a Chipolte fajita drowning in Tabasco Sauce whyyyyyyy????
Because it was not "lunch time." And what crazy people eat fajitas at 9 in the morning? Stupid boy.
This prompted my brain at the time to do something very stupid and that is question the status quo.
"Why do we even have foods that are designated as "breakfast," "lunch," or "dinner? Why am I forced to eat particular foods simply on the sole grounds because it's a certain time of day? Why is it people find it funny or odd that I want a pizza at 6AM or pancakes at 6PM? I want my Chipolte fajita, damnit!"
My mind further wandered thinking there must have been good dietary or historical reasons different foods have been designated as "breakfast" appropriate, "lunch" appropriate or "dinner" appropriate. If we have these things or these "practices" today, then there must have been a reason for it in the past.
However, my curiosity about the anthropological reasons for the evolution of meals was quickly overshadowed by my stupid brain, again, asking out of the box questions, hoping to change the status quo:
"Why can't we as a society change this? Why can't Chipolte just open up at 6AM and serve fajitas? Why isn't Jimmy John's open 24-7? Why are our choices of society relegated to pre-ordained foods during certain times of days? And why are my fellow countrymen so close-minded that we haven't jettisoned this outdated practice of having particular foods associated with particular meals at specified times of the day? If people weren't so sheeple in this country I could get a bottle of Jack Daniels, with a Chipolte fajita and some Sebastian Joe's ice cream for "breakfast." I could really live it up and be free in this country. But no, I have to suffer people's lack of vision! Stupid people, denying me my Chipolte fajita at 9 in the morning."
So I got done feeling sorry for myself. I figured I will never live long enough for society to evolve or advance to the point that we shouldn't relegate ourselves to a fraction of the foods for our meals based on the time of day. But perhaps I can plant the seed that will allow for that beautiful possibility someday. And so I ask;
"Does anybody know why we have breakfast foods vs. lunch foods vs. dinner foods?"
Figure somebody out there must know.
It was 9AM, I was hungry, and I didn't know how to cook (still don't).
I didn't want a biscuit. I didn't want a breakfast sausage. I didn't want pancakes. I wanted one thing:
a Chipolte fajita drowning in Tabasco Sauce.
But I couldn't have a Chipolte fajita drowning in Tabasco Sauce whyyyyyyy????
Because it was not "lunch time." And what crazy people eat fajitas at 9 in the morning? Stupid boy.
This prompted my brain at the time to do something very stupid and that is question the status quo.
"Why do we even have foods that are designated as "breakfast," "lunch," or "dinner? Why am I forced to eat particular foods simply on the sole grounds because it's a certain time of day? Why is it people find it funny or odd that I want a pizza at 6AM or pancakes at 6PM? I want my Chipolte fajita, damnit!"
My mind further wandered thinking there must have been good dietary or historical reasons different foods have been designated as "breakfast" appropriate, "lunch" appropriate or "dinner" appropriate. If we have these things or these "practices" today, then there must have been a reason for it in the past.
However, my curiosity about the anthropological reasons for the evolution of meals was quickly overshadowed by my stupid brain, again, asking out of the box questions, hoping to change the status quo:
"Why can't we as a society change this? Why can't Chipolte just open up at 6AM and serve fajitas? Why isn't Jimmy John's open 24-7? Why are our choices of society relegated to pre-ordained foods during certain times of days? And why are my fellow countrymen so close-minded that we haven't jettisoned this outdated practice of having particular foods associated with particular meals at specified times of the day? If people weren't so sheeple in this country I could get a bottle of Jack Daniels, with a Chipolte fajita and some Sebastian Joe's ice cream for "breakfast." I could really live it up and be free in this country. But no, I have to suffer people's lack of vision! Stupid people, denying me my Chipolte fajita at 9 in the morning."
So I got done feeling sorry for myself. I figured I will never live long enough for society to evolve or advance to the point that we shouldn't relegate ourselves to a fraction of the foods for our meals based on the time of day. But perhaps I can plant the seed that will allow for that beautiful possibility someday. And so I ask;
"Does anybody know why we have breakfast foods vs. lunch foods vs. dinner foods?"
Figure somebody out there must know.
MGTOW vs WGTOW
Susan Walsh has an interesting piece up at her little cabin in the Hookuposphere. It highlights an article by Katie Bolick about how single women, who are now in their 30's and 40's, are embracing their singlehood, and coming to grips they may never marry, striking out on going their own way.
Read it first, before continuing on.
You read it yet?
You have????
OK, here we go.
I like the article and very much agree with everything that's been said because it is essentially "WGTOW." Women of a certain age are starting to realize their perceptions and strategies were not quite accurate or effective when it came to choosing an appropriate suitor, and now that they are no longer the "hot little thing" they were when Milli Vanilli was popular, they are forced to accept reality and abide by it. It's a healthy decision to realize you are on this planet this one time and you better make the best of it, and so to see a movement akin to MGTOW with women, I can and do tip my hat to them.
There's just a couple problems with the whole premise, and permit me to be blunt (not that you thought I was going to be anything but).
One, I don't believe it. Sorry, just don't. Normally I cite empirical data or statistics, but I have none. All I have is the totality of personal and anecdotal experience I've accumulated over the years to realize that women, especially in their 30's and 40's, AND ESPECIALLY IF THEY DON'T HAVE KIDS, become MORE desperate. Yes they'll tell themselves 30 is the new 20. And yes, they'll cite people like "Meg Ryan" or "Jennifer Aniston" who are still "hot" in their 40's. And yes, they'll read US or People magazine and watch reruns of "Tank Girl." But in the end, I don't believe women, like men in the MGTOW movement, believe it for one second. I believe it is their rationalization hamsters merely plagiarizing the MGTOW movement.
Two, while the two are analogous (MGTOW and WGTOW), the analogy ends in the origins of both movements. The origins of MGTOW hearkens back to when these men were in their early teens. Nerd or jock. Player or uber-beta. Virgin or porn star. All men have had to suffer the games, psychoses, drama, and just plain BS associated with dating and courting women/girls since puberty. Some men, with a low threshold for psychological pain or abuse (or as I like to call it "self-respect"), just give up. They make a conscious economic decision weighing the costs and benefits of continuing to pursue the opposite sex and came to the decision not to chase any more. To hop on their motorcycles, get the snippity snip, minimize their expenses and head out into the vast plains of life and maximize the time they have on this planet for their own benefit before they died.
This "process" or "epiphany" is different from the origins of WGTOW or how women decide going their own way is the best option. Most men go their own way in their prime. It's a conscious choice. It wasn't forced upon them. They purposely and consciously chose to quit because it was the wisest choice. Whereas with WGTOW, it's a situation that seems forced upon them. They wake up one day, at the age of 37, realize the past 7 years was not as fruitful as it was from 1990-1997 and are faced with the reality nobody cares about Winona Ryder anymore. They only care about Megan Fox. They never analyzed or assessed the ROI of their efforts on attracting a male. They never looked back and said, "Gee, I'm going to die here in a short 40 years, I better quit pissing away my time at the bars and go hiking in Glacier National Park." They just took the time to finally turn around and see men stopped chasing them back in Bush's first administration.
They then claim, "Oh yeah, me too! Fish-bicycle! I'm going my own way!" Sadly, because it's their only option. This, does not a deeply thoughtful (or intellectually honest) epiphany make.
Three, which is related to two, is an issue of human psychology. Specifically, hard wiring.
I truly believe when a man comes to the decision to go his own way, the romantic/social/dating/whatever environment was so hostile it overrode his hard-wired programming to chase women. This is NOT a light statement. Because if your external environment was so hostile, to the point it overrides your genetic programming, that's a pretty hostile environment. I also contend the environment is so hostile, it literally damages your hard-wiring, or perhaps your brain sabotages it on purpose so that you can continue on with a reasonably normal and enjoyable life before you die. You girls perhaps have ran into the "dark, but quiet" man who you theorize was hurt by some woman in the past and you wish to show him there's reason to live and love once again? Yeah, that's the guy I'm talking about.
Sadly, it's already too late. His wiring has been irreparably damaged. He's no longer capable of love or romance, he's in a sense a fully functional automoton, capable of all human functions bar romance and love. Try as you might, he can't be put back together. He is "damaged goods." It's a battery that is dead and just won't turn over. In short, it wasn't a choice for him. His heart or mentality was permanently "broken" and shan't ever be put back together again.
But this cannot be said for the WGTOW movement. I'm sure womens' hearts have been "broken" and this isn't to say you haven't fallen in love before, blah blah blah. But you have not been driven to the brink where your genetic programming and hard-wiring is damaged or impaired. You haven't been driven to the point where you actually are forced to think of your mortality and how you've been living your life and deciding it is genuinely better to go at it on your own and pack it in before you die, completely taken men out of the picture.
Why?
Well, truthfully (and here we go with that blunt stuff again), ON THE WHOLE (admitting there are exceptions) women have had it pretty good in this country when it comes to quality and caliber of men. They were just WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too picky (or perhaps preoccupied with playing little funny torturous mind games) when it came to men. I know and acknowledge there are women who have been genuinely abused.
But I'm not talking about them.
I'm talking about the other 98.5% of women in American who watched too much 90210, Oprah or what have you and whose expectations were outlandishly high.
These girls/women have not gone through anywhere NEAR the psychological torture necessary to irreparably damage their hard-wiring to just POOF, give up on men and GENUINELY go their own way.
Four, it's an issue of timing. Given a limitless time horizon, yes, I 100% accept and agree that women would go their own way. But their environment has not been that hostile LONG ENOUGH to essentially break their spirit and their hard-wiring. Men have been at this since they were essentially 13 or 14. You add 20 years of that kind of hostile environment of mind games, being stood up, drama, suicide threats, sh!t tests, flightiness, flakiness, divorce, blah blah blah, and he'll burn out. So by the time he's in his 30's, he's done, he's impaired, he's on his motorcycle and you just see a tailpipe obscured by a puff of exhaust.
Women don't start that training or suffer anything approaching that kind of a hostile environment until they're maybe 30 or 35. And given how society and media constantly artificially pump up their egos, the true learning can be delayed until they're 40 (because, as you know, Oprah said 40 is the new 30. And there's this cougar fad. And Katie Couric is on the news. And did you see Aston Kutchner! He's married to Demi Moore...oops...wait ;).
So if I'm to believe this, Katie Bolick and other 30 something women, in a mere short 2-4 years, have suffered enough of a hostile courting environment that it destroyed their genetic programming and hard-wiring?
Sorry, I don't buy it dear. It takes A LOT of pain, agony, suffering and a relentless, never ending massive assault of nuclear-powered psychological BS to destroy your hard-wiring. Men, frankly, have never launched such a long, vicious, vile or sustained assault on women in this country, leading me to once again believe it is the plagiarizing rationalization hamster.
Of course, there is a silver lining to all this. And that is equilibrium.
As an economist I am a big believer in equilibrium. It is a constant and natural state in all aspects of physics, economics and humanity. It cannot be denied or defied. It is a fact. Because, well, if any system (the universe, the economy, humanity, etc) were NOT to be in equilibrium, it would blow up or destroy itself (which in itself is achieving equilibrium - ahhhhh!). But my deep philosophical hookey pookey aside, the point is you WILL most definitely get to suffer enough to the point your hard wiring is impaired. You will most definitely get to earn your stripes and the right to claim GENUINE WGTOW status. Because, banter about it all you want, a large enough population of the single men out there, ESPECIALLY in their 30's-50's have sooooo been put through the ringer, you'll never have the chance you did to potentially woo them into matrimony back when they were 20 and reasonably functional, healthy and capable in terms of romance and love. Your options are now limited to damaged goods. You have no choice now.
So it's not like you won't be going your own way. Don't worry, another 15-20 years wandering in the harsh desert you've essentially created for yourselves and you'll rank right up there with the rest of us. And besides, it's guaranteed. You'll have the honor of turning highly functional automotons like us when you're 55! You will become 100$ USDA certified WGOTW's.
All I ask is you please don't fake it in the meantime.
Read it first, before continuing on.
You read it yet?
You have????
OK, here we go.
I like the article and very much agree with everything that's been said because it is essentially "WGTOW." Women of a certain age are starting to realize their perceptions and strategies were not quite accurate or effective when it came to choosing an appropriate suitor, and now that they are no longer the "hot little thing" they were when Milli Vanilli was popular, they are forced to accept reality and abide by it. It's a healthy decision to realize you are on this planet this one time and you better make the best of it, and so to see a movement akin to MGTOW with women, I can and do tip my hat to them.
There's just a couple problems with the whole premise, and permit me to be blunt (not that you thought I was going to be anything but).
One, I don't believe it. Sorry, just don't. Normally I cite empirical data or statistics, but I have none. All I have is the totality of personal and anecdotal experience I've accumulated over the years to realize that women, especially in their 30's and 40's, AND ESPECIALLY IF THEY DON'T HAVE KIDS, become MORE desperate. Yes they'll tell themselves 30 is the new 20. And yes, they'll cite people like "Meg Ryan" or "Jennifer Aniston" who are still "hot" in their 40's. And yes, they'll read US or People magazine and watch reruns of "Tank Girl." But in the end, I don't believe women, like men in the MGTOW movement, believe it for one second. I believe it is their rationalization hamsters merely plagiarizing the MGTOW movement.
Two, while the two are analogous (MGTOW and WGTOW), the analogy ends in the origins of both movements. The origins of MGTOW hearkens back to when these men were in their early teens. Nerd or jock. Player or uber-beta. Virgin or porn star. All men have had to suffer the games, psychoses, drama, and just plain BS associated with dating and courting women/girls since puberty. Some men, with a low threshold for psychological pain or abuse (or as I like to call it "self-respect"), just give up. They make a conscious economic decision weighing the costs and benefits of continuing to pursue the opposite sex and came to the decision not to chase any more. To hop on their motorcycles, get the snippity snip, minimize their expenses and head out into the vast plains of life and maximize the time they have on this planet for their own benefit before they died.
This "process" or "epiphany" is different from the origins of WGTOW or how women decide going their own way is the best option. Most men go their own way in their prime. It's a conscious choice. It wasn't forced upon them. They purposely and consciously chose to quit because it was the wisest choice. Whereas with WGTOW, it's a situation that seems forced upon them. They wake up one day, at the age of 37, realize the past 7 years was not as fruitful as it was from 1990-1997 and are faced with the reality nobody cares about Winona Ryder anymore. They only care about Megan Fox. They never analyzed or assessed the ROI of their efforts on attracting a male. They never looked back and said, "Gee, I'm going to die here in a short 40 years, I better quit pissing away my time at the bars and go hiking in Glacier National Park." They just took the time to finally turn around and see men stopped chasing them back in Bush's first administration.
They then claim, "Oh yeah, me too! Fish-bicycle! I'm going my own way!" Sadly, because it's their only option. This, does not a deeply thoughtful (or intellectually honest) epiphany make.
Three, which is related to two, is an issue of human psychology. Specifically, hard wiring.
I truly believe when a man comes to the decision to go his own way, the romantic/social/dating/whatever environment was so hostile it overrode his hard-wired programming to chase women. This is NOT a light statement. Because if your external environment was so hostile, to the point it overrides your genetic programming, that's a pretty hostile environment. I also contend the environment is so hostile, it literally damages your hard-wiring, or perhaps your brain sabotages it on purpose so that you can continue on with a reasonably normal and enjoyable life before you die. You girls perhaps have ran into the "dark, but quiet" man who you theorize was hurt by some woman in the past and you wish to show him there's reason to live and love once again? Yeah, that's the guy I'm talking about.
Sadly, it's already too late. His wiring has been irreparably damaged. He's no longer capable of love or romance, he's in a sense a fully functional automoton, capable of all human functions bar romance and love. Try as you might, he can't be put back together. He is "damaged goods." It's a battery that is dead and just won't turn over. In short, it wasn't a choice for him. His heart or mentality was permanently "broken" and shan't ever be put back together again.
But this cannot be said for the WGTOW movement. I'm sure womens' hearts have been "broken" and this isn't to say you haven't fallen in love before, blah blah blah. But you have not been driven to the brink where your genetic programming and hard-wiring is damaged or impaired. You haven't been driven to the point where you actually are forced to think of your mortality and how you've been living your life and deciding it is genuinely better to go at it on your own and pack it in before you die, completely taken men out of the picture.
Why?
Well, truthfully (and here we go with that blunt stuff again), ON THE WHOLE (admitting there are exceptions) women have had it pretty good in this country when it comes to quality and caliber of men. They were just WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too picky (or perhaps preoccupied with playing little funny torturous mind games) when it came to men. I know and acknowledge there are women who have been genuinely abused.
But I'm not talking about them.
I'm talking about the other 98.5% of women in American who watched too much 90210, Oprah or what have you and whose expectations were outlandishly high.
These girls/women have not gone through anywhere NEAR the psychological torture necessary to irreparably damage their hard-wiring to just POOF, give up on men and GENUINELY go their own way.
Four, it's an issue of timing. Given a limitless time horizon, yes, I 100% accept and agree that women would go their own way. But their environment has not been that hostile LONG ENOUGH to essentially break their spirit and their hard-wiring. Men have been at this since they were essentially 13 or 14. You add 20 years of that kind of hostile environment of mind games, being stood up, drama, suicide threats, sh!t tests, flightiness, flakiness, divorce, blah blah blah, and he'll burn out. So by the time he's in his 30's, he's done, he's impaired, he's on his motorcycle and you just see a tailpipe obscured by a puff of exhaust.
Women don't start that training or suffer anything approaching that kind of a hostile environment until they're maybe 30 or 35. And given how society and media constantly artificially pump up their egos, the true learning can be delayed until they're 40 (because, as you know, Oprah said 40 is the new 30. And there's this cougar fad. And Katie Couric is on the news. And did you see Aston Kutchner! He's married to Demi Moore...oops...wait ;).
So if I'm to believe this, Katie Bolick and other 30 something women, in a mere short 2-4 years, have suffered enough of a hostile courting environment that it destroyed their genetic programming and hard-wiring?
Sorry, I don't buy it dear. It takes A LOT of pain, agony, suffering and a relentless, never ending massive assault of nuclear-powered psychological BS to destroy your hard-wiring. Men, frankly, have never launched such a long, vicious, vile or sustained assault on women in this country, leading me to once again believe it is the plagiarizing rationalization hamster.
Of course, there is a silver lining to all this. And that is equilibrium.
As an economist I am a big believer in equilibrium. It is a constant and natural state in all aspects of physics, economics and humanity. It cannot be denied or defied. It is a fact. Because, well, if any system (the universe, the economy, humanity, etc) were NOT to be in equilibrium, it would blow up or destroy itself (which in itself is achieving equilibrium - ahhhhh!). But my deep philosophical hookey pookey aside, the point is you WILL most definitely get to suffer enough to the point your hard wiring is impaired. You will most definitely get to earn your stripes and the right to claim GENUINE WGTOW status. Because, banter about it all you want, a large enough population of the single men out there, ESPECIALLY in their 30's-50's have sooooo been put through the ringer, you'll never have the chance you did to potentially woo them into matrimony back when they were 20 and reasonably functional, healthy and capable in terms of romance and love. Your options are now limited to damaged goods. You have no choice now.
So it's not like you won't be going your own way. Don't worry, another 15-20 years wandering in the harsh desert you've essentially created for yourselves and you'll rank right up there with the rest of us. And besides, it's guaranteed. You'll have the honor of turning highly functional automotons like us when you're 55! You will become 100$ USDA certified WGOTW's.
All I ask is you please don't fake it in the meantime.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Was Obama's Pecks Worth It?
This was from about 2-3 years ago. Damn am I good.
It is of course part of a series that everybody should watch.
It is of course part of a series that everybody should watch.
Samurai Delicatessen
Ug, you youth. Not only did I have to explain Eddie Murphy's "James Brown Celebrity Hot Tub" to this youth, I also now had to explain "Samurai Delicatessen."
And I know you young kids are all too busy to sit through the 30 second commercial on Hulu, but just watch it. You'll thank the ole Captain later.
And I know you young kids are all too busy to sit through the 30 second commercial on Hulu, but just watch it. You'll thank the ole Captain later.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Road to Spinsterdom
From an old friend of mine in Chicago.
Two 40 something women going out in Chicago to "partaaaaay-woooooo!" The theme of the bar - 80's rock.
I know many of you in the Manosphere have your appetite whetted in anticipation of a story about clueless and aging women vainly trying to cling onto their youth.
You shan't be disappointed.
Two 40 something women going out in Chicago to "partaaaaay-woooooo!" The theme of the bar - 80's rock.
I know many of you in the Manosphere have your appetite whetted in anticipation of a story about clueless and aging women vainly trying to cling onto their youth.
You shan't be disappointed.
Well, I Better Inform You Guys
Dr. Glenn Reynolds was kind enough to make mention of my book, Worthless on Instapundit.
And better yet, his wife was kind enough to write a review. To add icing to this cake, she titles it with light saber sharpness:
"Are Liberal Arts Colleges Becoming Finishing Schools for Women?"
Hooo hooo!!!!
Because of their linkage my book has gone from an Amazon rank of 60,000-ish to 31,000-ish, to now 2,000-ish (Mythical Cassandra has been keeping me updated). And sales thus far will afford me this nice scoped AR-15 I have my eye on.
Regardless, understand Instapundit is kind of like the conservative/libertarian version of Oprah's book club. It's the best you can hope for in this realm and is a very-welcomed bit of good news in the ole Captain's life.
I now of course have dreams of this mention creating kind of a bomb-hitting-the-magazine-in-a-ship type of chain reaction effect. People will forward to other people, all of NRO's authors will read it and want interviews, Dr. Walter E Williams will invite me over for martinis and basketball, Drudge will list it at the top of his web site, and Rush Limbaugh will invite me over for a round of golf...which I don't play...so I'll be his caddy or something. Oh! And I want hot Foxnews Babes to request me that I teach them how to salsa dance. Preferably Leeane Tweeden, but I'm not picky.
Now, I know all of my readers. You're all rough and tumble type yahoos, and you all like to shoot the old Captain a couple barbs his way in loving jesting fun. But just let me dream for now of becoming the next Vince Flynn wherein the Rumpie flows freely, motorcycles are on the cheap, Stugis is open year-round, and I can make fossil hunting my day time job....well, that or at least I'll be able to get that scoped AR 15.
And better yet, his wife was kind enough to write a review. To add icing to this cake, she titles it with light saber sharpness:
"Are Liberal Arts Colleges Becoming Finishing Schools for Women?"
Hooo hooo!!!!
Because of their linkage my book has gone from an Amazon rank of 60,000-ish to 31,000-ish, to now 2,000-ish (Mythical Cassandra has been keeping me updated). And sales thus far will afford me this nice scoped AR-15 I have my eye on.
Regardless, understand Instapundit is kind of like the conservative/libertarian version of Oprah's book club. It's the best you can hope for in this realm and is a very-welcomed bit of good news in the ole Captain's life.
I now of course have dreams of this mention creating kind of a bomb-hitting-the-magazine-in-a-ship type of chain reaction effect. People will forward to other people, all of NRO's authors will read it and want interviews, Dr. Walter E Williams will invite me over for martinis and basketball, Drudge will list it at the top of his web site, and Rush Limbaugh will invite me over for a round of golf...which I don't play...so I'll be his caddy or something. Oh! And I want hot Foxnews Babes to request me that I teach them how to salsa dance. Preferably Leeane Tweeden, but I'm not picky.
Now, I know all of my readers. You're all rough and tumble type yahoos, and you all like to shoot the old Captain a couple barbs his way in loving jesting fun. But just let me dream for now of becoming the next Vince Flynn wherein the Rumpie flows freely, motorcycles are on the cheap, Stugis is open year-round, and I can make fossil hunting my day time job....well, that or at least I'll be able to get that scoped AR 15.
St. Frick's Day
As you know the Patron Saint Frick watches over Cappy Cap and this here blog. He's not the best and most saintly saint, kind of a crass saint, as I believe he's the only angel in heaven with a bottle of Rumpleminze in one hand and a cigar in the other. He curses and swears, and lectures people for their stupidity, but deep down inside his intentions are good, he just lacks the patience needed to tolerate most people today.
It is because of his curmudgeon and alcoholic like manner we are all endeared to St. Frick, however, I believe the Patron Saint Frick deserves his own holiday, certainly more than St. Valentine. Therefore I decree tomorrow, February 15th be St. Frick's Day.
St. Frick's Day is where the loveable St. Frick comes into all the various restaurants, stores and shops at around 1250PM on February 14th. He patiently waits till the stroke of midnight, signalling the start of February 15th, takes a belt of Rumpleminze and uses his super saintly powers to discount everything off by 90% that was jacked up for the 14th, essentially undoing the evil of St. Valentine.
Roses, jewelry, wine, chocolates, dinners and (of course) lingerie, all of it
POOF!
90% off!
THousands of lovers who were smart enough not to pay St. Valentine's Day prices, flood the markets and buy up things on the super cheap. Mirth ensues as women are adorned with 3 times as much chocolate and roses than they would have been on the 14th! Joviality is guaranteed as men and women can get BOTH the steak AND the lobster, with some high quality scotch to boot! Lingerie flies off the shelf, only to be temporarily placed on the femme fatale participants on St. Frick's Day as their alpha male lovers can now enjoy the entire Fredricks of Hollywood catalog on their beautiful girlfriends as opposed to a mere article or two.
Yes, St. Frick's Day is a happy day for all to enjoy, indeed.
The only request the Patron Saint Frick asks is that you join him in his daily 2PM Belt o' Rumpleminze to give thanks to the patron saint, and so that he may not drink alone at 2PM. A small token of appreciation I think we all can endure.
So be smart all junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economists. Don't bother wasting precious funds today merely to feed the evil St. Valentine. Wait until we are liberated tomorrow by Saint Frick, wherein we can celebrate the principles of frugality, love, and drinking in the afternoon.
Post-post - this is pretty good actually.
It is because of his curmudgeon and alcoholic like manner we are all endeared to St. Frick, however, I believe the Patron Saint Frick deserves his own holiday, certainly more than St. Valentine. Therefore I decree tomorrow, February 15th be St. Frick's Day.
St. Frick's Day is where the loveable St. Frick comes into all the various restaurants, stores and shops at around 1250PM on February 14th. He patiently waits till the stroke of midnight, signalling the start of February 15th, takes a belt of Rumpleminze and uses his super saintly powers to discount everything off by 90% that was jacked up for the 14th, essentially undoing the evil of St. Valentine.
Roses, jewelry, wine, chocolates, dinners and (of course) lingerie, all of it
POOF!
90% off!
THousands of lovers who were smart enough not to pay St. Valentine's Day prices, flood the markets and buy up things on the super cheap. Mirth ensues as women are adorned with 3 times as much chocolate and roses than they would have been on the 14th! Joviality is guaranteed as men and women can get BOTH the steak AND the lobster, with some high quality scotch to boot! Lingerie flies off the shelf, only to be temporarily placed on the femme fatale participants on St. Frick's Day as their alpha male lovers can now enjoy the entire Fredricks of Hollywood catalog on their beautiful girlfriends as opposed to a mere article or two.
Yes, St. Frick's Day is a happy day for all to enjoy, indeed.
The only request the Patron Saint Frick asks is that you join him in his daily 2PM Belt o' Rumpleminze to give thanks to the patron saint, and so that he may not drink alone at 2PM. A small token of appreciation I think we all can endure.
So be smart all junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economists. Don't bother wasting precious funds today merely to feed the evil St. Valentine. Wait until we are liberated tomorrow by Saint Frick, wherein we can celebrate the principles of frugality, love, and drinking in the afternoon.
Post-post - this is pretty good actually.
Remember to Go to Starbucks Today
Remember Cappy Cappites, today is Starbucks Appreciation Day.
And make sure to let the anti-gun nanny nazi's know you are buying a nice big fat latte today!
info@gunvictimsaction.org
And make sure to let the anti-gun nanny nazi's know you are buying a nice big fat latte today!
info@gunvictimsaction.org
Monday, February 13, 2012
From Our Italian Agent in the Field
Whew boy! This one is lengthy, but good if you are looking to understand concepts like money.
I've been meaning to put together a lecture on money and production which would go a long way in simplifying people's understanding of economics, but just haven't had time.
Regardless, pour yourself a double shot o' Rumpie before taking on the link above.
I've been meaning to put together a lecture on money and production which would go a long way in simplifying people's understanding of economics, but just haven't had time.
Regardless, pour yourself a double shot o' Rumpie before taking on the link above.
They Employ the Nicest People at Green Peace
Pedophilia and environmentalism just go so well together.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Female Sexual Centrism
"Centrism" is one of the words academians use when their field or discipline is worthless. For example you don't hear engineering doctorates use "centrism" ever in their lectures or textbooks. They're too busy living in the real world building things people want. Along with "centrism" are words like "paradigm" or "rubric" and other such words that 100% guaran-freaking-tees you the field is worthless.
The term "centrism," though, I first ran into in college in the early 90's where everything was "euro-" or "anglo-" centric. Hard not to be when pretty much all inventions, innovations, technological advances and powerful economies herald from western civilizaiton. But as much as I loathe the term "centrism," I'll grant myself this one opportunity to use the word in that I plan on turning it around and using it against those who originally brought it into its existence.
I was out driving around smoking a cigar and enjoying the sun, when my mind wandered and I noticed for the most part that we live in a female sexual "centric" society. In other words the female version of sexuality is deemed "correct" or "proper" whereas male sexuality is considered "bad" or "wrong."
For example, when a guy says he just wants to have frivolous, meaningless sex, he's considered to be a cad, or shallow or sick or just plain "wrong." Whereas when a woman insists on having a relationship or some level of emotional involvement as a pre-requisite to sex, that's considered "good" or "proper."
I'll give you another one.
It's virtuous and noble to like somebody for their inner-beauty. Wow, what a kind and great person you are to find somebody's intellect attractive. But dare you say,
"I like long legs, long hair, pouty lips, and big gazongas"
SHAME! You are SHALLOW, HOLLOW and "only going after one thing."
I have a simple question:
Who in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick determined the male approach to sexuality was "bad" and the women's approach "good?"
If you look at society, it's more or less ordains female sexuality as the "appropriate" sexuality and more or less criminalizes or shames male sexuality.
This is funny because last I checked male and female sexuality was essentially binary in nature. For example in electricity you have either positive or negative. Computers are either on or off. And even though the words "positive" or "on" are considered better than "negative" or "off" in reality they are not words that describe morality. Merely states.
That wire is positively charged. That wire is negatively charged.
That computer is on. That computer is off.
00000000 00000001 (some IT humor there for the boys)
And male and female sexuality is the same thing. One is not better than the other. Nor is another worse than the other. They are merely two sides of the same coin. States or binary traits the sexes have.
Because they are neutral when it comes to morality, I'm just wondering why male sexuality is shunned or shamed, while female sexuality is championed? The reason I ask is I'm getting mightily tired of having my sexual programming be overlooked or even villainized, while I have to have the female version shoved down my throat.
BBW? Uh no.
"Large and in charge?" Uh no.
"Big is beautiful?" Uh no.
Lingerie for overweight people? Uh, DOUBLE NO!
Now you can go ahead and lecture me about how evil I am and how mean I am and blah blah blah. Not only will it make my point that men can't speak freely about their sexual preferences without incurring social wrath AND also point out society is female sexual "centric," your arguments are moot because it's like arguing that
HEY! THAT COMPUTER IS (GASP!) ON!!!!! Shame on you computer for being on!
HEY! That wired has a (GASP) NEGATIVE CHARGE!!! Shame on you wire for having a negative charge!
Hey! 00000000 00000001! 00100100 00111100 10110110 01111010!!!!
It would be like me lecturing women about (GASP!) PREFERRING TO HAVE CHILDREN!!!!
Additionally, arguing against something that is genetically programmed or hardwired in men, once against violates The Reality Principle. You can argue till your face is blue that you find it dirty and disgusting men prefer skinny, younger women over fat older ones. You might as well be arguing against gravity or arguing against the tornado about to barrel down on your house, because you're arguing against reality. However, there are consequences to arguing against reality, notably for the women who so desperately wish to ignore male sexuality.
The perfect example is the Herculean efforts and strides made to make fat women (and men I might add) feel proud about themselves. AND at the same time shame men for being "shallow" for daring to not find them attractive. The result is that the overweight woman lives in a very accommodating, but delusional world. She never loses the weight, but at the same time never finds a guy (and consequently has bad health too). She never really achieves any happiness (though I'm sure I can hear the screeching now about how "we don't need a man to be happy" and blah blah blah), because society lacked the spine to be upfront with her and accept male sexuality for what it is. So the poor woman dies, not living her full potential she could, wondering why men never came around simply because society never acknowledged what the other side of the coin might have to say.
So who is the real victim of female sexual centrism? Sadly, both men and women, because no matter how much each side may claim otherwise, we are in this boat together and would prefer each others' company. Men are silenced and oppressed on a psychological and social level from voicing their preferences and just being plain ole males. While women are misled about the true nature of male sexuality, let alone its very existence. Because of this, they violate The Reality Principle, operate on the false premise female sexuality is the only thing that matters, rendering their attempts and efforts to have success with the opposite sex fruitless or at least impaired (unhappy marriages, "my day" is somehow viewed as the BEST day in her life, husbands who get fat because she does, sexless marriages/relationship, etc. etc.). The end result, everybody is not as happy as they could be, divorce rates go through the roof, and society still recommends "female sexuality good, male sexuality bad."
Not until we treat it as 00000000 and 00000001 and realize there is no "right" or "wrong," men you can expect to see more of this, and ladies you can expect to see more of this.
This highly politically incorrect (and therefore, truthful) PSA brought to you by Cappy Cap.
The term "centrism," though, I first ran into in college in the early 90's where everything was "euro-" or "anglo-" centric. Hard not to be when pretty much all inventions, innovations, technological advances and powerful economies herald from western civilizaiton. But as much as I loathe the term "centrism," I'll grant myself this one opportunity to use the word in that I plan on turning it around and using it against those who originally brought it into its existence.
I was out driving around smoking a cigar and enjoying the sun, when my mind wandered and I noticed for the most part that we live in a female sexual "centric" society. In other words the female version of sexuality is deemed "correct" or "proper" whereas male sexuality is considered "bad" or "wrong."
For example, when a guy says he just wants to have frivolous, meaningless sex, he's considered to be a cad, or shallow or sick or just plain "wrong." Whereas when a woman insists on having a relationship or some level of emotional involvement as a pre-requisite to sex, that's considered "good" or "proper."
I'll give you another one.
It's virtuous and noble to like somebody for their inner-beauty. Wow, what a kind and great person you are to find somebody's intellect attractive. But dare you say,
"I like long legs, long hair, pouty lips, and big gazongas"
SHAME! You are SHALLOW, HOLLOW and "only going after one thing."
I have a simple question:
Who in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick determined the male approach to sexuality was "bad" and the women's approach "good?"
If you look at society, it's more or less ordains female sexuality as the "appropriate" sexuality and more or less criminalizes or shames male sexuality.
This is funny because last I checked male and female sexuality was essentially binary in nature. For example in electricity you have either positive or negative. Computers are either on or off. And even though the words "positive" or "on" are considered better than "negative" or "off" in reality they are not words that describe morality. Merely states.
That wire is positively charged. That wire is negatively charged.
That computer is on. That computer is off.
00000000 00000001 (some IT humor there for the boys)
And male and female sexuality is the same thing. One is not better than the other. Nor is another worse than the other. They are merely two sides of the same coin. States or binary traits the sexes have.
Because they are neutral when it comes to morality, I'm just wondering why male sexuality is shunned or shamed, while female sexuality is championed? The reason I ask is I'm getting mightily tired of having my sexual programming be overlooked or even villainized, while I have to have the female version shoved down my throat.
BBW? Uh no.
"Large and in charge?" Uh no.
"Big is beautiful?" Uh no.
Lingerie for overweight people? Uh, DOUBLE NO!
Now you can go ahead and lecture me about how evil I am and how mean I am and blah blah blah. Not only will it make my point that men can't speak freely about their sexual preferences without incurring social wrath AND also point out society is female sexual "centric," your arguments are moot because it's like arguing that
HEY! THAT COMPUTER IS (GASP!) ON!!!!! Shame on you computer for being on!
HEY! That wired has a (GASP) NEGATIVE CHARGE!!! Shame on you wire for having a negative charge!
Hey! 00000000 00000001! 00100100 00111100 10110110 01111010!!!!
It would be like me lecturing women about (GASP!) PREFERRING TO HAVE CHILDREN!!!!
Additionally, arguing against something that is genetically programmed or hardwired in men, once against violates The Reality Principle. You can argue till your face is blue that you find it dirty and disgusting men prefer skinny, younger women over fat older ones. You might as well be arguing against gravity or arguing against the tornado about to barrel down on your house, because you're arguing against reality. However, there are consequences to arguing against reality, notably for the women who so desperately wish to ignore male sexuality.
The perfect example is the Herculean efforts and strides made to make fat women (and men I might add) feel proud about themselves. AND at the same time shame men for being "shallow" for daring to not find them attractive. The result is that the overweight woman lives in a very accommodating, but delusional world. She never loses the weight, but at the same time never finds a guy (and consequently has bad health too). She never really achieves any happiness (though I'm sure I can hear the screeching now about how "we don't need a man to be happy" and blah blah blah), because society lacked the spine to be upfront with her and accept male sexuality for what it is. So the poor woman dies, not living her full potential she could, wondering why men never came around simply because society never acknowledged what the other side of the coin might have to say.
So who is the real victim of female sexual centrism? Sadly, both men and women, because no matter how much each side may claim otherwise, we are in this boat together and would prefer each others' company. Men are silenced and oppressed on a psychological and social level from voicing their preferences and just being plain ole males. While women are misled about the true nature of male sexuality, let alone its very existence. Because of this, they violate The Reality Principle, operate on the false premise female sexuality is the only thing that matters, rendering their attempts and efforts to have success with the opposite sex fruitless or at least impaired (unhappy marriages, "my day" is somehow viewed as the BEST day in her life, husbands who get fat because she does, sexless marriages/relationship, etc. etc.). The end result, everybody is not as happy as they could be, divorce rates go through the roof, and society still recommends "female sexuality good, male sexuality bad."
Not until we treat it as 00000000 and 00000001 and realize there is no "right" or "wrong," men you can expect to see more of this, and ladies you can expect to see more of this.
This highly politically incorrect (and therefore, truthful) PSA brought to you by Cappy Cap.
I Am One to Brag
As all of you know I am not exactly the humble, shy, bashful type. Nor, in my honest opinion, do I view myself as arrogant or egotistical. I truly believe that in today's PC world, people's sensibilities have been lowered so low, that anybody who has the gall to stand up for oneself, merely point out the truth or have the audacity to toot their own horn, is usually labeled as a blowhard. However, I have achieved something quite commendable and I wish to share it with you, and frankly, don't give a damn how it is perceived amongst the pansified PC classes. Besides which, there's an important lesson here for the boys.
I have been working out quite regularly, as well as participating in an excruciating jujitsu program for the past 6 months. I was never "not" in shape, but I was never chiseled or ripped at the same time either. Also, I started following the diet laid out in Freedom 25's book. The results are thus:
Again, I am by no means a ripped Ryan Reynolds, but there IS something to be said for the subsegment of the Manosphere that addresses dieting and eating right, as well as working out on a regular basis. A correct diet, as well as regular (and unfortunately) rigorous exercise, I am starting to believe is more of a must among men in this world. If we are going to list demands and hold women to certain standards, then we too much also stay in shape and be physically attractive to them. Not only for the health benefits it brings to ourselves, and not only to avoid being hypocrites, but also because staying physically fit is infinitely more economical and efficient than try to go to a bar and "game" some girl with chat, gab and charm.
Additionally, for those of us lucky enough to have found the rare woman that is the traditional, loving, sexy, caring 1940's type gal that had the intelligence to give establishment feminism the finger (and be more than willing to become the naughty June Cleaver in the kitchen heh heh), they of all women most certainly deserve a sexy, physically attractive man. Not some DB that just acts alpha and plays game and scratches his ass.
So, hence forth fellow junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economists of the male persuasion:
If you got an extra 20 pounds, lose it.
If you got the choice between staying home for 2 hours watching TV or going for a 10 mile walk, go for a walk.
If you eat crap, stop.
Not just because improving your physique will prove more productive in the end in your romantic pursuits, but if you're lucky like some of us to have a girl that tolerates our manosphere theology, AND SHE BELIEVES IN IT, can you think of a more deserving woman that is entitled to a better and sexier you?
I have been working out quite regularly, as well as participating in an excruciating jujitsu program for the past 6 months. I was never "not" in shape, but I was never chiseled or ripped at the same time either. Also, I started following the diet laid out in Freedom 25's book. The results are thus:
Again, I am by no means a ripped Ryan Reynolds, but there IS something to be said for the subsegment of the Manosphere that addresses dieting and eating right, as well as working out on a regular basis. A correct diet, as well as regular (and unfortunately) rigorous exercise, I am starting to believe is more of a must among men in this world. If we are going to list demands and hold women to certain standards, then we too much also stay in shape and be physically attractive to them. Not only for the health benefits it brings to ourselves, and not only to avoid being hypocrites, but also because staying physically fit is infinitely more economical and efficient than try to go to a bar and "game" some girl with chat, gab and charm.
Additionally, for those of us lucky enough to have found the rare woman that is the traditional, loving, sexy, caring 1940's type gal that had the intelligence to give establishment feminism the finger (and be more than willing to become the naughty June Cleaver in the kitchen heh heh), they of all women most certainly deserve a sexy, physically attractive man. Not some DB that just acts alpha and plays game and scratches his ass.
So, hence forth fellow junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economists of the male persuasion:
If you got an extra 20 pounds, lose it.
If you got the choice between staying home for 2 hours watching TV or going for a 10 mile walk, go for a walk.
If you eat crap, stop.
Not just because improving your physique will prove more productive in the end in your romantic pursuits, but if you're lucky like some of us to have a girl that tolerates our manosphere theology, AND SHE BELIEVES IN IT, can you think of a more deserving woman that is entitled to a better and sexier you?
It's Called Capital Flight
I love it.
US courts wants to sue a Swiss bank because they won't willingly betray their clients and give the US government their money.
BUT (here's the kicker)
Oh, that's right! It's a SWISS bank, not a US bank! And so the bank simply didn't show up to court.
The pure hubris of the federal government thinking they can violate a country's sovereignty when it comes to getting other people's money.
US courts wants to sue a Swiss bank because they won't willingly betray their clients and give the US government their money.
BUT (here's the kicker)
Oh, that's right! It's a SWISS bank, not a US bank! And so the bank simply didn't show up to court.
The pure hubris of the federal government thinking they can violate a country's sovereignty when it comes to getting other people's money.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Tommy Jordan for President
Everybody has seen the video. I just wanted to make my small dent in this huge intergalactic webbosphere that Tommy Jordan should be president and his daughter is actually going to turn out a hell of a lot better than most of the trash that is being churned out in suburban America right now.
God bless you Tommy Jordan.
God bless you Tommy Jordan.
Why Bachelors Don't Cook
I even removed my stove from my old place in Minneapolis so I could put in a martini lounge.
It was a wise decision.
It was a wise decision.
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Biggest Load of Crap I Ever Heard
"Pass down our values" my sweet, perfectly sculpted little Irish ass.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Not a Team Player
But the type of guy who would actually lead your company to new heights, no, we don't want that guy.
You "crazy, 1960's rebels" enjoy that decline who established the status quo and prefer ass-kissing to ass-kicking.
In the meantime, I'd love to see how you propose to have future generations generate the economic production necessary to pay for the crap you're promised yourselves while you tie the current generations' hands behind their backs.
You "crazy, 1960's rebels" enjoy that decline who established the status quo and prefer ass-kissing to ass-kicking.
In the meantime, I'd love to see how you propose to have future generations generate the economic production necessary to pay for the crap you're promised yourselves while you tie the current generations' hands behind their backs.
GDP in Terms of Gold
I had previously calculated what the price of gas was had you used gold as your currency instead of US dollars. The price of oil today would be somewhere around $1.29.
I then figured, "hey, why not convert US GDP in terms of gold?"
I will admit upfront this is not a completely fair comparison in that it is more reflective of the price of gold than it is the productive ability of the US, but it is interesting to note that if we used gold as the currency, GDP today would be a mere $400 billion, about what it was when the last time the economy sucked this bad - Jimmy Carter.
I'm just waiting for the next Ronald Reagan.
I then figured, "hey, why not convert US GDP in terms of gold?"
I will admit upfront this is not a completely fair comparison in that it is more reflective of the price of gold than it is the productive ability of the US, but it is interesting to note that if we used gold as the currency, GDP today would be a mere $400 billion, about what it was when the last time the economy sucked this bad - Jimmy Carter.
I'm just waiting for the next Ronald Reagan.
Obey the Charty Goodness
And linkage herein:
Untucked shirt = gun-carrying criminal. What, oh what would we do without those smart San Fran journalists?
Charty goodness from Canada.
The ONE advantage we have over China is we still (sort of) have enough freedom of the press to go and derive our own economic numbers, or at least the ability to question the official government statistics. But don't worry, the latest generation of entitlementers will more than offset that advantage.
I will say it again - capitalism isn't a choice. It is REALITY. You can go ahead and believe in socialism or some other human created system, but capitalism is the only system that is based in human nature and structures society to benefit from it. The further you deviate from that fact, the worst your economy and society would be. Besides, Jesus agrees with me.
Dieter would approve of his charty goodness. I just don't speak German enough.
When unions lie. It's always good to have some basic mathematical skills to be able to litmus test when somebody or some group is lying. I have used this on many occasions when (typically) the left provides an "asstistic" (it's like a 'statistic' but it's pulled from their ass) and you just need to do some simple mathematical calculations to know they're wrong. It also, however, helps to know some basic economic statistics to provide context. Things like the GDP of a nation, how much debt we have, etc. I often wonder how many liberals think the $900 trillion lawsuit filed by the batbleep insane woman is a rational or reasonable number. They just see "illion" and think "Mitt Romney land" when in reality they don't know the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion.
You can't handle The Deets!!! Mr. Kohler earns a badge of honor pissing off all the right people.
Let's go green at the expense of everything else. I hope those people in that school district enjoy paying the higher property taxes.
Ho ho ho! Oh, the poor idealistic girl. She thinks the majority of people actually have children for...(are you ready for it)....THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN!!!! HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!! Oh, innocent, wonderful Clarissa. Dont' know you kids in the US are just like SUV's, drapes, furniture and flat panel screen TV's? They're consumer goods used to make the purchasers happy! And just like cars they can be stored in the garage (day care) and maintained by other people (tax payers). You don't think modern day American dads want to play catch with their sons or modern day American mothers want to rear their children, do you? Why, that would take work!
Some genuine hope.
Enjoy the pretty explosions as nature and religion collide!
Untucked shirt = gun-carrying criminal. What, oh what would we do without those smart San Fran journalists?
Charty goodness from Canada.
The ONE advantage we have over China is we still (sort of) have enough freedom of the press to go and derive our own economic numbers, or at least the ability to question the official government statistics. But don't worry, the latest generation of entitlementers will more than offset that advantage.
I will say it again - capitalism isn't a choice. It is REALITY. You can go ahead and believe in socialism or some other human created system, but capitalism is the only system that is based in human nature and structures society to benefit from it. The further you deviate from that fact, the worst your economy and society would be. Besides, Jesus agrees with me.
Dieter would approve of his charty goodness. I just don't speak German enough.
When unions lie. It's always good to have some basic mathematical skills to be able to litmus test when somebody or some group is lying. I have used this on many occasions when (typically) the left provides an "asstistic" (it's like a 'statistic' but it's pulled from their ass) and you just need to do some simple mathematical calculations to know they're wrong. It also, however, helps to know some basic economic statistics to provide context. Things like the GDP of a nation, how much debt we have, etc. I often wonder how many liberals think the $900 trillion lawsuit filed by the batbleep insane woman is a rational or reasonable number. They just see "illion" and think "Mitt Romney land" when in reality they don't know the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion.
You can't handle The Deets!!! Mr. Kohler earns a badge of honor pissing off all the right people.
Let's go green at the expense of everything else. I hope those people in that school district enjoy paying the higher property taxes.
Ho ho ho! Oh, the poor idealistic girl. She thinks the majority of people actually have children for...(are you ready for it)....THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN!!!! HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!! Oh, innocent, wonderful Clarissa. Dont' know you kids in the US are just like SUV's, drapes, furniture and flat panel screen TV's? They're consumer goods used to make the purchasers happy! And just like cars they can be stored in the garage (day care) and maintained by other people (tax payers). You don't think modern day American dads want to play catch with their sons or modern day American mothers want to rear their children, do you? Why, that would take work!
Some genuine hope.
Enjoy the pretty explosions as nature and religion collide!
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Hollywood's Echo Chamber
Well, when you make movies that only left coast liberals like, and tailor movies primarily towards women or middle aged women with yet ANOTHER George Clooney movie, while charging them $10.50 for A SINGLE ticket, are you surprised sales are down?
Seriously, you people can't figure this out? Last movie I saw in the theater THAT WAS GOOD was MI4. Before that The Expendables was the only movie I willingly forked over money for. I will see Safe House. But I couldn't even ratioanlize seeing Sherlock Holmes II. But apparently the concept of a movie with a plot, a good guy, a bad guy, and no forced romance plot eludes Hollywood.
Don't worry Hollywood, Netflix and LCD projectors will make you change.
Seriously, you people can't figure this out? Last movie I saw in the theater THAT WAS GOOD was MI4. Before that The Expendables was the only movie I willingly forked over money for. I will see Safe House. But I couldn't even ratioanlize seeing Sherlock Holmes II. But apparently the concept of a movie with a plot, a good guy, a bad guy, and no forced romance plot eludes Hollywood.
Don't worry Hollywood, Netflix and LCD projectors will make you change.
James Brown Celebrity Hot Tub
Apparently you youth are unaware of one of the finer bits of theatrical genius from the late 80's. I actually had to explain Eddie Murphy's "James Brown Celebrity Hot Tub."
Ug, you youth. All you learn is socialism and how great you are for merely existing in school.
Ug, you youth. All you learn is socialism and how great you are for merely existing in school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)