February 11, 2009 - February 4, 2009
I have to admit it's hard to imagine that a nation with as short an
attention span as the U.S. -- and with as much disdain for the outdated
relicts of yesteryear -- could summon any real enthusiasm for a royal
Restoration such as the Clintons have in mind. Everything about them is
old, even their scandals, which are already distressingly reminiscent
of the '90s rather than the exciting new era of the Global War on
Terror and the Congressional War on the Iraq War.
I mean, do Americans really want to go back to sex scandals (Lewinsky, Willey, Jones, Huma...) and campaign finance scandals (Charlie Trie, Norman Hsu...) and personal corruption scandals (Whitewater, Marc Rich, Hillary's private jets...) in an age when lowly U.S. Senators are coming across with bathroom stall scandals and the young lions of the Democrat Party believe they can prove the President and his VP not only stole two elections in a row but also planned the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history? In this context, the standard Clinton fireworks are pretty small potatoes if you ask me. [YAWN]. Excuse me. Didn't mean to be disrespectful there, but facts are facts.
Who needs Lewinsky's soggy blue dress when we've got Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and Britney Spears showing off their private parts in high resolution to paparazzi with guaranteed 4-hour turnaround on the Internet? And free sex tapes filmed in state-of-the-art military nightvision. Even Bill's geriatric sins are mild compared to all that.
And just who is it that's so fond of the 1990s anyway? In case you've forgotten, here's what the American scene was really like when the Clintons burst into our lives a whole generation ago:
Boy, that was a long time ago. A LOT of water over the dam since then.
And this woman dares to talk about the future as if her vision of it
were actually exciting? Give me a break. It's like Angela Lansbury
promo'ing a super-hot episode of "Murder She Wrote" on the Merv Griffin Show
If single mothers are her biggest constituency, I'm pretty disappointed in single mothers. I'd sort of gotten the idea they were taking their cues from Britney, not Doctor Ruth.
Weird postulates have been creeping into the body politic of late.
Notably, atheists have somehow outflanked theists to assume the default
position that belief in God is somehow so absurd that it can be
ridiculed as an automatic sign of imbecility. Similarly, the MSM
worship of gay popinjays has invested these exceptions to both
Christian morality and Darwinian evolution with an automatic authority
defies reason as well as good taste. I promise to address the atheist
fraud later on. Today, I'll content myself with a repudiation of the
gay supremacy meme.
Sorry fellas, but there really is something wrong with gay men. I call it the Bright Eyes Syndrome. They've made their lives about one thing, overwhelmingly one thing. It's made them into hysterical personalities. For a long time they were in the closet, concealing the 'one thing' from intimates, families, and professional associates. In other words, they were in the business of lying on a systematic basis about the 'one thing' that was most crucial to their sense of personal identity. This is a distorting phenomenon. Worse, it never worked. Heterosexual men tend to know that homosexual men are homosexual. If they pretended they didn't, they were being kind and they were feeding a dangerous notion that made homosexual men feel superior. "They don't know this primal thing about me. I must be infinitely smarter and more perceptive than they are."
Then they came out of the closet. Which made them feel special -- and in the current media climate -- somehow chosen as a super-sensitive blend of what is best in both the male and female sexes, meaning they were free to be detached and rational when it suited them and irrationally emotional when it suited them, with the result that their every whim was automatically better than the best their male and female competitors could muster. Combined with the built-in hysteria of their monomaniacally sex-obsessed natures, this kind of attention made them into self-worshipping monsters.
Here's Andrew Sullivan's blog. He may once have been an intelligent cultural and political critic. Now he's simply a prancing joke. He has verbal skills. He has keen powers of observation. He is knowledgeable about current events. But the world that passes under his purview is nothing but a prop for his bright-eyed peacock strut.
Proof? Look at the picture. He really doesn't know that he's an average looking, middle-aged bald guy wth the kind of mincing step that tells 98 percent of men that his fondest pursuit is taking it up the ass from another guy. And that all his writing and commentary are nothing but a part of his unappetizing mating dance.
Bright eyes. Dulled mind. Anxious ass. The kind of farce Oscar Wilde would have dealt with mercilessly if he were still alive to see all the pathetic mimics of his charm and intellect.
I'm pretty much sick of intellectual queers. Or queer intellectuals. Decide for yourselves which is the more politically incorrect insult. You'll find me here. As always.
So the official college football season has come to a close, and the
various polls have picked their top ten teams. There's no point in
rehashing the analysis of the conventional football wisdom about how
the bowl games will go. Is there anything worth saying? Yes. Readers of
InstaPunk will know that we care about little things as well as big
things, details as well as life-and-death issues. That's why this is
the the only blog we know of that took a position on the disastrous
trend in baseball toward slouchy pants with no
visible socks. It's not a fashion boo-boo; it's a crime against the
national pastime and all it stands for. The truth is, sports uniforms
are important. They speak volumes
about the values of the teams and
institutions they represent. It's even possible that if one picked the
best uniforms in a sport, it would be tantamount to picking the best
representatives of the sport itself.
That's an experiment we're willing to try. What are the ten best uniforms in college football? And what do those uniforms say? Obviously, any such list will have its detractors, but controversy is the most fun people can have in the blogosphere with their pajamas on. Don't hesitate to snipe and carp and fulminate about Instapunk's list of the Top Ten. The pettier your reasoning, the better.
Did we forget to mention we're biased? Well, we are. But we're still right. Rutgers would be higher on the list if they hadn't given in to the current fad of having too many uniforms. If we weren't biased, we'd have dropped them out of the Top Ten for the ultimate no-no of showing up for a game in all black uniforms. But they got shellacked in that game and probably won't wear that particular sartorial atrocity again. The home uniform they wore against Navy was one of the smartest we've seen: scarlet jersey, white pants, black stockings, and the iconically simple scarlet "R" helmet. Perfection.
Nothing on those Crimson Tide helmets but a number. Simple, understated
They'd be higher on the list if it weren't for those damned buckeye
leaves they put on their helmets.
Otherwise, the uniforms are sensational, both home and away. Scarlet
and gray are the colors every school would choose if they were starting
all over from scratch. Ohio State grabbed them way back at the
beginning. And they haven't changed much over the years, except for
putting names on the backs of their jerseys.
We're not that biased. Yeah,
we've never liked USC and their 'el supremo' mentality. On the other
hand, they're in the Pac 10, where most schools seem to think it's best
to have a different uniform for every single game (Google 'worst
uniforms' and the University of Oregon will leap to the fore, with
umpty-thousand combinations of weird get-ups.) But USC doesn't play
that game. They stick with their admittedly striking color combination
year after year after year. That's worthy of respect. And admit it:
their uniforms are handsome.
This is a nomination from the distaff side. Ordinarily, we don't like
the monochrome jersey-pants combination and usually regard it as a
disqualifier. But Kentucky gets the nod because their blue is such a,
well, beautiful blue. It is.
And the uniforms aren't all junked up with busy helmet graphics,
excessive stripes, or fancy fonts for their numbers. And it really is a
It's almost impossible to improve on Navy's navy-blue
and gold ultra-simplicity. Almost.
Ah, those helmets. The graphic nod to the leather helmet construction
of the old days. No 'M' for Michigan. The cub scout colors (What are
you going to do if scarlet and gray are already taken?) Sorry, George.
Michigan wins this time because there aren't any little wolverine
prints on the helmets of Woody's infamous "It" team. And no stripes, no
frills. Another superb classic.
These are essentially the same uniforms they were 30 or 40 years ago.
Oddly enough, that's not even the rule in the Ivy League. Penn seems to
change uniform designs every year, and recently Princeton has apparently
been trying to jettison orange for a more (politically correct?)
reddish color, not to mention their imitation Michigan helmet graphics.
Harvard and Yale have stood shoulder to shoulder in reactionary
solidarity, however, in all but one respect. Harvard
sneaks into the top three because its uniforms exemplify the ultimate
team statement -- no names on
the jerseys, only numbers. Every player is simply one of the Crimson.
Kind of surprising when you remember it's Harvard we're talking about
All things considered, perfect.
No helmet insignia, no stripes, no names on the jerseys, yet instantly
recognizable and timelessly smart. Why are they Number Two rather than
Number One? Because they care enough about uniforms to wear green
instead of blue on occasion. Sounds like a scintilla of vanity to us.
Which you can't say about
The ultimate. One color: blue. No stripes on jersey or pants, no helmet
insignia, no names on jerseys, and adamant refusal to mar the purity of
white pants. It's so close to completely generic that the only
difference between the Nittany Lions and an unbranded supermarket
football team is their coach, their history, and their performance on
the field. They don't need to dress up like lions because they play like lions. It just doesn't
get any better than this.
Now you know what our criteria are. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.
Feel free to disagree, but marshall your arguments carefully. Football
isn't a dress-up game. It's a team sport in which duds shouldn't
And before you ask, the pro nominations are easy: the Bears, the Browns, and the Steelers. Everybody else is a popinjay except the Raiders, whose uniforms are even uglier than they are simple. If you want to fight about it, we're always here.