LIVE AT FIVE: 01.04.16

All things considered, I had a pretty good 2015 and am working on making 2016 even better. Hope the same is true for you Loyal Readers! This week I’m being somewhat traditional and sticking to pin-ups for the appetizer – and that having been said, let me put in an unsolicited plug for Gina Elise’s Pinups For Vets, which brings a lot of happiness to veterans in VA hospitals. The 2016 calendar is now out, featuring seventeen attractive veterans as models!
As usual, many of the following links are to pictures generally considered NSFW, so if you wish to protect the purity of your precious bodily fluids, please exercise discretion in your clicking. The management is not responsible for any loss of essence that occurs through your lack of discretion.

Happy 2016, everybody!

Leading off this week is Goodstuff, who starts the year in a big way with Dolly Parton. Next up, it’s Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress, and Girls with Guns; Animal Magnetism chips in with Rockin’ New Year’s Rule Five Friday and a Saturday Asian Invasion, Postaldog has his Top 12 Most Viewed Posts, The Last Tradition adds Tehmeena Afzal and Shakara Ledard, and First Street Journal pays tribute this week to The Lion(esse)s of the Jordan.

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes Diane Lane, What Are You Doing New Year’s Eve?, Mummers, and Dorothy Lamour.

A View from the Beach contributes Goldie Hawn, RIP: Natalie Cole, Final Holiday Underwear Post, Happy New Year!, WTF Happened in 2015?, A Romp Around the News with Wombat-socho, Wednesday Fishing Video, “Call of the Mountain”, Monday Morning Mistake, Time to Work Off Some of Those Christmas Cookies, and Can the Redskins Re-Pluck the Eagles?

At Soylent Siberia, it’s your morning coffee creamer’s perfect pour, Monday Motivationer Beauty Mark, Tuesday Titillation Double Feature, Humpday Red Hawt, Falconsword Fursday Furlette, Happy New Year’s Eve, Latent Lingerie Happy New Year, Weekender By Sea, and Bath Night Bonanza.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Adrienne Palicki, his Vintage Babes are New Year’s Babes, Sex in Advertising is covered by Victoria’s Secret, and of course there’s the obligatory 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s Noomi Rapace and the late Natalie Cole.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next week’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, January 9.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Bad Advice From Bad Women

Posted on | January 3, 2016 | 34 Comments

Charlotte Shane (@CharoShane) is a slut who writes about sex. There are a lot of these around lately. I blame Sex and the City, or maybe let’s go back further and blame Helen Gurley Brown. At any rate, the ambition of every young female English major nowadays is (a) to have sex with dozens of men and (b) get paid to write about it. It’s journalistic prostitution, really — exhibitionism justified by the excuse that the Let-Me-Tell-You-About-My-Sex-Life racket is about feminist empowerment.

There is an interesting 21st-century double-standard about the sexual memoir genre, namely that men aren’t allowed to engage in it. A man who boasts about his sexual exploits is condemned as a misogynist, as Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh could testify. Everything we are allowed to know about sex, it seems, must be filtered through a feminist lens, and men’s perspective on sex are therefore unwelcome. Feminism is the belief that men are always wrong about everything, especially sex. And so the question of what guys enjoy sexually is never asked, let alone answered, because feminism is not about making men happy.

So Charlotte Shane is eager to share how she “blazed through my twenties” in promiscuous splendor but — plot twist! — now she’s met Mister Right and decided monogamy is what she wants:

I didn’t expect to become monogamous — I thought I’d be comfortably faithless forever — but I grow more and more grateful for this development by the day, in no small part because it saved me from adding to the grim parade of temporary partners who had come before. The problem with “only f–king” isn’t that sex is dangerous or wrong outside the confines of certain social containers like the boyfriend label or an engagement ring. It’s that in 2015 and before, casual sex, as practiced by straight Americans, was routinely bereft of physical pleasure, mutual respect, and interpersonal maturity. Hook ups were supposed to be fun but they… well, weren’t. And straight women, who bore the bulk of this failure, were finally fed up.
Why did casual sex suck so much? Because very few straight cis men were as libidinous, skilled, or nice as they needed to be to make the enterprise worthwhile. When arranging my “casual encounters,” I hoped for low level warmth and good naturedness to accompany fun sex, but this modest combination was exceedingly rare. And in 2015, I watched friend after friend suffer the same relentless indignities I’d endured in 2014, before [her current boyfriend] entered the scene. “Being straight is a constant exercise in degradation,” I found myself telling them because it was the most sincere validation I could summon. We’d been told that men were insatiable, that they’d be thrilled by our appetites and eagerness and carefully cultivated hotness, yet we kept bumping up against potheads and sluggards who seemed severally sexually under-motivated in spite of having signed up for a site designed to get them laid. Then there were the erectile problems courtesy of bad diets, prescription or recreational drugs, and performance anxiety. Those who could get it up, inexcusably, often mimicked porn moves with an alarming degree of sincerity. I daresay even the rare vaginal orgasm-er among us is shocked by the ignorance behind such cartoonish penetrative encounters.

Notice she blames (a) heterosexuality and (b) men, not necessarily in that order, for her failure to find happiness in hedonism. The LGBT community has a monopoly on “physical pleasure, mutual respect, and interpersonal maturity,” she seems to believe. No one is allowed to ask if maybe Charlotte Shane’s problem was . . . Charlotte Shane.

Bad judgment and bad morals are generally not a formula for success in life, and the fact that the men with whom Charlotte Shane hooked up via Tinder were all inadequate, disrespectful and/or immature should not surprise us. As I have explained elsewhere, the dating market is full of bad guys because all of the good guys already have girlfriends and good guys don’t cheat. Past a certain age — maybe as early as 25 — the singles scene is nothing but culls and rejects. The keepers are already taken, and if you’re still in the dating scene when you’re 30, you’re rummaging through piles of damaged goods and leftovers in the discount bin.

The one thing Charlotte Shane cannot do is consider that she could ever be at fault. Exactly how “mature” and “respectful” is she? Not very. Promiscuity is inherently immature, and it’s not respectful, either.

All the men she ever had sex with were ignorant and incompetent, she would have her readers believe, because that’s just how heterosexual men are. There are apparently no exceptions to this categorical denunciation (except, of course, the guy she’s dating now) and she issues a sweeping condemnation of males:

After that came the inevitable emotional abuse, either through casual cruelty or empathetic laxity. Ok, we get it: masculinity doesn’t indoctrinate its conscripts in thoughtfulness, kindness, or basic manners. But too many otherwise intelligent grown men wallowed in their narcissism and sexism, gaslighting one-time partners into believing that an expectation of decency was evidence of simpering clinginess rather than indicative of healthy self-respect. If a woman initiated a repeat physical encounter, she was regarded as desperate to date. If she stood up for herself after being treated rudely, she was “crazy.” Whenever a woman was something other than merely sexually pliable and passive, her presence suddenly became onerous. Straight men, in turns out, largely had no idea how to actually be friends with the women they would have once called “f–k buddies.”

You can read the rest. The feminist echo chamber permits no man to speak a word of correction to fools like Charlotte Shane, and so the only thing young women know about sex is what such fools tell them.

The only advice feminists ever accept is bad advice from bad women. Feminists never listen to good women and, because feminists believe men are always wrong about everything, we are not even allowed to say a word in our own defense. The reason feminists think all men are stupid is because no smart man would ever talk to a feminist.

Category: Sex Trouble

Chicago: Murder City, U.S.A.

Posted on | January 3, 2016 | 48 Comments

If violent death is your idea of fun, Chicago is a fun place:

The Chicago Police Department announced Friday that murders and shootings rose significantly in 2015 . . .
The year-end crime statistics showed there were 468 murders in Chicago in 2015 compared with 416 the year before, a 12.5% increase, as well as 2,900 shootings—13% more than the year prior, and up 29% since 2013. Chicago had more homicides than any other city in 2015, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Three people were shot to death in Chicago on New Year’s Day, and another 12 people were wounded, but survived. What the hell is wrong with Chicago? It’s run by corrupt Democrats (but I repeat myself) who have no respect for the idiots who elected them, because why should they? If people are stupid enough to vote for Democrats, they deserve bad government, and Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is making sure the stupid voters of Chicago get exactly what they deserve:

Hundreds of police officers at one of the country’s busiest airports say in the case of an active shooter, they are instructed to run and hide.
That’s because these officers are unique among the nation’s major airports: They don’t carry guns.
Their badges, uniforms and vehicles all say “police.” And they are certified police officers in the state of Illinois.
But these nearly 300 aviation police officers, also known as aviation security officers, are not allowed to carry guns at Chicago’s O’Hare and Midway airports. . . .
Internal aviation department documents obtained through department sources state, “If evacuation is not possible: hide.”
The documents advise locking doors, turning off lights and remaining quiet and calm.
“We must also ensure that unarmed security personnel … do not attempt to become part of the response, but could be invaluable to the evacuation efforts,” the documents said.
In addition, a training video shown to aviation police officers has the same instructions: “If evacuation is not possible, you should find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you. Block entry to your hiding place and lock the door.”

Chicago used to be a great city, but Democrats are determined to prove that they can ruin anything. “The murder and shooting rates there make Kandahar Province look like a cozy, secure vacation destination,” Jazz Shaw writes at Hot Air, adding that residents “might want to take some advice from Daniel Greenfield and Escape from Chicago.”

Category: Chicago, Crime

FMJRA 2.0: Wolf Like Me

Posted on | January 2, 2016 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: The Week Between
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Doxed Lives Matter
The United Voice of America
Bizzy Blog

FMJRA 2.0: Walking In The Shadow of The Big Man
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

The Value of Motherhood
Living In Anglo-America

Feminism: Death Cult Chaos
Lunacy Is Contagious
Living In Anglo-America
Here’s My Thing
Batshit Crazy News

Hey, You Guys, It Is Now ‘Anti-Feminist’ to Say Feminists Are ‘Not All Lesbians’
Living In Anglo-America
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

LIVE AT FIVE: 12.28.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

LIVE AT FIVE: 12.29.15
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

This Blog Gives Her Majesty 90 Days In Office #HillaryClintonHealthConspiracies
A View from the Beach

LIVE AT FIVE: 12.30.15
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

LIVE AT FIVE: 12.31.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

Real Feminists Support Bernie Sanders
First Street Journal
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Did I Forget to Mention #RollTide?
Batshit Crazy News

What’s Wrong With ‘Equality’?

Posted on | January 2, 2016 | 61 Comments

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969

“Woman’s biology oppresses her only when she relates to men. The basis of the inequality of the sexes here is seen as the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse as a result of sex-specific anatomy. To transcend or avoid this in personal life by having sexual relations only with women — lesbianism — eliminates the gender-based underpinnings of sexual inequality in this view. . . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

“By demonizing males and stigmatizing heterosexuality . . . feminism seeks to create equality, but what it actually creates is decadence and chaos.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “Feminism: Death Cult Chaos,” Dec. 30, 2015

One of the fundamental principles of logic is that you cannot reach a true conclusion if your argument is based on a false premise. Feminists have been proving this for nearly 50 years.

It should have been obvious from the moment the Women’s Liberation Movement emerged in the late 1960s that feminists would ultimately fail to bring about the “equality” they promised, and that this radical movement would inflict enormous damage to American society. Here we are, decades later, and young feminists who were not even born when this movement began are vehemently insisting that they are victims of an “oppression” for which “all men” are to blame. What feminists now demand — as a bare minimum, sine qua non — is that Hillary Rodham Clinton (Wellesley College, Class of 1969; Yale Law School, Class of 1973) be elected President of the United States, and feminists will condemn everyone who opposes Hillary’s election as a misogynist.

The Bernie Sanders campaign is a token resistance to the foregone conclusion of the Clinton nomination, and it does not matter who the Republican Party nominates as its candidate. In 2016, feminists will attempt to convince the electorate that the only people who will vote Republican on Nov. 8 are those who hate women. Anticipating this attack (it has been evident for many months now) it is necessary for conservatives to understand what feminism actually means, so that they can explain to the American people why “equality” is wrong.

This requires an argument that is as difficult to make in 21st-century America as it was in 18th-century France. Long before the outbreak of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, Edmund Burke foresaw the danger inherent in the premise of the radical rhetoric of “equality.” That the revolution ended in the establishment of a military dictatorship under Napoleon should suffice to prove that Burke’s warnings were prophetic. Furthermore, as must be obvious to any student of history, the radicalism of Jacobin France was the inspiration of Marxist socialism, which in turn inspired the Bolshevik Revolution, which led to the dictatorship of Josef Stalin. Over and over, we see the same lesson repeated: Radicals promise “equality,” and the end result is tyranny. Only a fool would expect feminism to deviate from this precedent, and what we see on university campuses today — where opposition to feminism is effectively prohibited — is a foreshadowing of what we might expect under the regime of President Hillary Clinton.

Explaining what is wrong with the politics of “equality” is never easy. Everyone can think of some unfairness they have experienced in life, and it is easy to accept “equality” as a synonym for fairness, which is why a political rhetoric that promises “equality” has such an enduring popular appeal. It takes a lot more thought, and a consideration of consequences that are not apparent in the superficial discourse of campaign slogans, to realize that (a) measures intended to create “equality” are generally both harmful to society and expensive to taxpayers, and (b) “equality” itself is ultimately an impossible goal. Of course, if you are willing to run up a national debt of nearly $19 trillion, the expense of “equality” may be something taxpayers can ignore. However, as Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, and not even the wealthiest nation on Earth can forever postpone paying its debts. Perhaps there are those who would justify such reckless spending in the name of “equality,” yet we are told that the gap between the rich and poor keeps growing, despite the many trillions of dollars that have been spent to help the poor since Lyndon Johnson inaugurated his “War on Poverty” policy in the 1960s. When you listen to Democrats talk, it seems as if they have forgotten what Ronald Reagan said in his 1988 State of the Union address:

My friends, some years ago, the Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won. Today the Federal Government has 59 major welfare programs and spends more than $100 billion a year on them. What has all this money done? Well, too often it has only made poverty harder to escape. Federal welfare programs have created a massive social problem. With the best of intentions, government created a poverty trap that wreaks havoc on the very support system the poor need most to lift themselves out of poverty: the family. Dependency has become the one enduring heirloom, passed from one generation to the next, of too many fragmented families.

By attempting to make government a substitute for the family, liberal anti-poverty programs “created a massive social problem” that Democrats are now evidently determined to make even worse.

The Democrat Party is committed to feminism, and feminism is committed to the destruction of the family. Feminists have spent decades denouncing marriage and motherhood as “patriarchal structures” by which “all men have oppressed women.” What is their motive?

The feminist myth that their movement is about rectifying an unjust inequality is exposed as a self-serving lie once you begin examining the biographies of the leading proponents of feminist ideology. Catharine MacKinnon, for example, is the daughter of a Republican congressman and judge; her family’s wealth enabled her to attend elite schools (Smith College and Yale University) and to spend 18 years writing her grand opus, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. It is astonishing to read, in the preface of her 1989 book (p. xiv), that the first chapter “was written in 1971-72, revised in 1975, and published in Signs in 1982.” Only an extraordinary sort of financial security can explain how a writer could be able to wait a full decade between writing the first draft of an essay and its initial publication. During the intervening years, MacKinnon published The Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) just two years after graduating from Yale Law School. This Marxist daughter of a Republican father was able to make herself an “expert” on the problems of “working women” precisely because she never had to work a day in her life.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money. It was her remarkable socioeconomic privilege that was the basis of MacKinnon’s lifelong assault on “male supremacy,” and we see a similar pattern in the lives of many other feminists. Consider this statement:

“We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women, which defines male as good and female as only as good as the man you are with. It is a system in which heterosexuality is rigidly enforced and Lesbianism rigidly suppressed.”

So wrote Ginny Berson in the 1972 cover story of the first issue of The Furies, the lesbian-feminist newspaper published by a radical Washington, D.C.-based collective founded by Charlotte Bunch. Both of these women were the beneficiaries of elite education. Charlotte Bunch graduated from Duke University in 1966, and Ginny Berson graduated in 1967 from Mount Holyoke College, one of the prestigious “Seven Sisters,” the all-women’s colleges that were analogous to the Ivy League, back when elite schools like Harvard, Yale and Columbia were all-male. Annual tuition for the 2015-2016 academic year is $49,341 at Duke and $43,886 at Mount Holyoke, so the claim that privileged women like Charlotte Bunch and Ginny Berson were “oppressed” and “f–ked over” by “male supremacy” was as manifestly absurd in 1972 as it is today.

My 2016 prediction: Expect this feminist "STRONG WOMAN" meme a million times until Hillary Clinton is elected. #tcot pic.twitter.com/MKVSxiDGmD

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 31, 2015

Feminism is a movement led by privileged women who seek to gain money and power for themselves by advocating an ideology which aims to destroy the family as the basis of society. The consequences of such a movement’s success will not be “equality,” but rather the destruction of all hope for happiness for many millions of American women who do not have the advantages of wealth, social privilege and elite education that feminists like Hillary Clinton take for granted. As Burke said of the French Revolution, feminists “therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things,” and anyone who thinks that President Hillary Clinton will do anything else is in for a rude awakening.

Feminism: Death Cult Chaos https://t.co/rHYY88n3XZ "…'equality' requires the destruction of morality." And the normalization of madness.

— Jen B (@LibertyImages) December 31, 2015

DEATH CULT: Feminism is the People's Temple and Hillary Clinton is Jim Jones, leading America to a jungle in Guyana. pic.twitter.com/wfD8MH6txn

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) January 2, 2016

Will America drink the Kool-Aid of “equality”?

Category: Sex Trouble

Did I Forget to Mention #RollTide?

Posted on | January 1, 2016 | 29 Comments

Alabama’s Tim Williams sacks Michigan State quarterback Connor Cook.

Thursday afternoon, my son Jefferson and I were watching #1 Clemson beat #4 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, and we began to discuss the upcoming Cotton Bowl game between #2 Alabama and #3 Michigan State. My father graduated at Tuscaloosa in the Class of 1951, and I was raised on ‘Bama football during the era when the Crimson Tide was coached by the immortal Bear Bryant. One of my earliest football memories is watching the Green Bay Packers in the famous 1967 “Ice Bowl” NFL championship game and. when Bart Starr scored the winning touchdown, my dad saying, “That’s Bart Starr! He’s a ‘Bama boy!” Then, of course, there was Joe Namath’s famous “guarantee” victory in Super Bowl III — another ‘Bama boy. Dad used to get tickets to the games, and I spent many Saturdays at Legion Field in Birmingham cheering the Tide.

Somehow, the ‘Bama games I attended that particularly stand out in memory are the defeats. In 1981, Georgia Tech beat us 24-21 — a real heartbreaker. Alabama and Tech used to be bitter rivals (mentioned in the ‘Bama fight song), but in the ’60s, Tech left the SEC and there was a 15-year interval before the rivalry was renewed. The 1981 game was a sellout and Dad couldn’t get tickets from ‘Bama, so we got them through our cousin Dan Post, a Tech alumnus. This meant we were seated in the middle of a bunch of Yellow Jacket fans, which made for an uncomfortable afternoon, especially because Robert Lavette ran all over us for two touchdowns. The other ‘Bama defeat that stands out in memory was the 1988 Hall of Fame Bowl in Tampa against Michigan. Dad got four tickets, so me, my two brothers and my brother’s wife went. Alabama fell behind 14-3 at halftime, and the Tide made a strong comeback , going ahead 24-21 on a Bobby Humphrey TD with less than four minutes left to play, but ended up losing 28-24. What I can never forget about that game was the Michigan fight song. It seemed like the Michigan band played that damned song every time their team so much as completed a pass. There is perhaps no experience in football more agonizing than to be playing Michigan, and losing, and having to hear their band blast out “Hail to the Victors” over and over and over.

Being born and bred ‘Bama, so to speak, I’ve raised my sons to be Crimson Tide fans, and shared with them the family lore. Dad used to say it was hard to be an Alabama fan because everybody wants to beat ‘Bama. There is never an easy week for Alabama, because every team on their schedule, no matter how lowly, is going to go all-out in hopes of upsetting the mighty Tide. Alabama has won 15 national championships and had 10 undefeated seasons, and expectations are always so high in Tuscaloosa that to lose even one game just ruins the whole year. Every Saturday, the Tide takes the field against an opponent totally fired up and dreaming of an upset, and this year ‘Bama lost to Ole Miss 43-37 in a game marred by five turnovers. It was an agonizing game for a Tide fan to watch and, because Ole Miss is an SEC West opponent, the consequences of that defeat were potentially devastating for Alabama’s hopes of a conference championship. That loss meant that, in order for the Crimson Tide to make it to the SEC title game, they would have to win the rest of their conference games and Ole Miss would have to lose twice to SEC opponents. And what were the odds of that?

Well, miracles happened. Ole Miss lost to Florida 38-10, and then in November, they lost a wild 53-52 overtime game to Arkansas, the same day Alabama beat LSU 30-16. What had seemed impossible just six weeks earlier had become a reality — Alabama controlled its own destiny, with a shot at the SEC title and, perhaps, even the National Championship. Ranked as low as #13 after the loss to Ole Miss, the Crimson Tide rose to #4 after beating LSU. Finishing the regular season strong with a 29-13 win over Auburn, and beating Florida 29-15 in the SEC Championship game, the Crimson Tide then saw junior running back Derrick Henry win the Heisman Trophy, and faced Michigan State in the BCS semifinal on New Year’s Eve.

So there we were Thursday afternoon in the McCain family living room, watching Clemson play Oklahoma. I was on the sofa, holding my 4-month-old grandson Alexander,. My 17-year-old son Jefferson was cuddled up on the love seat with his girlfriend Jade, and we started talking about a Clemson-Alabama matchup for the national title.

“Well, Michigan State’s gonna be tough,” I said, mentioning that the Spartans had defeated Ohio State, last year’s national champion.

To this my son replied, quite astutely, that Coach Nick Saban is college football’s most cunning analyst of game videos and he had had three weeks to watch video of Michigan State.

“True — if they’ve got a weakness, Saban will find it,” I said, but with memories of that error-plagued Ole Miss game haunting me, I added, “Bama has got to execute. No fumbles, no dropped passes, no missed tackles, no penalties.”

Clemson had trailed Oklahoma 17-16 at halftime, but in the second half, the Tigers took control, winning decisively 37-17. Watching this impressive performance by the undefeated No. 1 team, I said to Jefferson, “Clemson’s tough, but I think ‘Bama matches up pretty good with them, if we can just win tonight. What would be good, though” — and here I expressed a fond hope — “is if we can just dominate Michigan State. Beat the hell out of them and send a message to Clemson.”

THIRTY-EIGHT TO ZERO, BABY!

Alabama’s Jake Coker had his best game ever Thursday.

What was brilliant was that Saban, knowing how Michigan State would be set up to stop Derrick Henry, had Jake Coker use play-action passes to pick apart the Spartans’ secondary. Coker was 25 for 30, throwing for 286 yards and two touchdowns. Even though Michigan State held Henry to under 100 yards, he still scored two touchdowns. While the Crimson Tide racked up more than 400 yards of total offense, however, it was Alabama’s defense that was most impressive, holding Michigan State to only 29 rushing yards, and ‘Bama absolutely humiliated the Spartans’ quarterback. As ESPN’s Ivan Maisel said, the Tide defense “sacked Michigan State quarterback Connor Cook four times, intercepted him twice, and never gave him a chance to breathe.” The crucial play of the game came late in the first half. The Tide had taken a 10-0 lead, but Cook took the Spartans down to the ‘Bama 12 yard-line. A touchdown, or even a field goal, would have given Michigan State a boost in morale before halftime, but with 15 seconds left, Alabama’s Cyrus Jones intercepted Cook’s pass, and that seemed to destroy whatever hope the Spartans had left. Jones, incidentally, added a 57-yard punt return for a touchdown in the second half, a bit of icing on the cake of exactly what I had hoped for — a totally dominating Alabama performance. With their shutout of Michigan State, the Crimson Tide sent a clear message to Clemson: “Watch out. We’re coming to beat you.”

Alabama’s Cyrus Jones returns a punt for a touchdown.

Can Alabama do it? Of course they can, if they execute, concentrate, and avoid mistakes. Mental focus is the difference between giving up 43 points to Ole Miss and shutting out Michigan State. Championship football isn’t just about strength and speed — every man on the field is strong and fast — it’s about execution. What causes defeat is fumbles, dropped passes and missed tackles. Throwing an interception is bad, but you just factor that into the risks of the passing game. You throw enough passes, you’re gonna get intercepted every so often, but there is no excuse for a fumble. My father used to erupt in rage — “He was carrying the ball like a loaf of bread!” — whenever an Alabama player would fumble, and a dropped pass would always make Dad cuss. He played end in high school, and he had a zero-tolerance attitude toward dropped passes. “If you can get your hand on the ball, you ought to catch it,” was the sum total of his view on the subject. Likewise, Dad couldn’t stand to see a missed tackle. Proper tackling technique is just basic football, and for a player on scholarship at the University of Alabama to fail at such a basic task — well, this was simply unacceptable.

All the strength, speed and talent in the world won’t win a football game if players make those kind of mistakes, which are the result of mental lapses, a failure to concentrate. At the highest level of competition, the winning team is the one that avoids mistakes, and takes advantage of the opponent’s mistakes. You can get away with sloppy plays against a weak team (and honestly, Alabama got away with a few mistakes against Michigan State) but championship football requires nearly perfect execution, play after play. Watching Clemson beat Oklahoma, it was easy to see why the Tigers are undefeated. If the Crimson Tide doesn’t play their very best game Jan. 11 against Clemson . . .

Well, I prefer not to think about that possibility. Instead I hope Alabama gives an all-out effort from the opening kickoff to the last whistle. If they play their best, the Crimson Tide can beat anybody, and that probably explains why I always remember the games that ‘Bama lost.

They lose so rarely, after all.

<br />

Category: Alabama, Football

Real Feminists Support Bernie Sanders

Posted on | January 1, 2016 | 27 Comments

One of the things I notice while searching feminist Tumblr accounts is the high level of support for Bernie Sanders. This wouldn’t seem to make sense — shouldn’t feminists support Hillary Clinton? But feminism is a left-wing movement and Sanders is an unapologetic socialist, plus Hillary Clinton has a history of defending “rape culture”:

Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a “feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them. She attacked them. When allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” Multiple people also report that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”

That’s from Katherine Timpf at National Review, who is definitely not a socialist for Sanders. And I’m neither a socialist nor a feminist, so I certainly can’t advise socialist feminists whom to support. But it is newsworthy, I think, that the Democrats are the party of socialists and feminists. And also, rapists.

Sexual predators named Bill … pic.twitter.com/iLCx54tNHj

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 30, 2015

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.)

Category: Bill Clinton, Democrats, Election, Feminism, Hillary Clinton

« go back — keep looking »

Free Agents
SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

The Other McCain is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for this blog to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Triple-A Franchises
Blogroll

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

LIVE AT FIVE: 01.04.16

Rule 5 Sunday: Happy New Year!

Bad Advice From Bad Women

Chicago: Murder City, U.S.A.

FMJRA 2.0: Wolf Like Me

What’s Wrong With ‘Equality’?

Did I Forget to Mention #RollTide?

Real Feminists Support Bernie Sanders

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Search

Recent Posts

Click here to manage your email subscription options.

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Major Leagues

ADVERTISEMENT

Axis of Fedorables

AMAZING SAVINGS NOW!

Archives

Free Agents

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

Triple-A Franchises

Blogroll