News Roundup

Sponsored by:

Today, the news may not be exactly what it seems, as we take some of the above.


no comment necessary, except:


great moments in good timing.


prison wardens not available for comment.


and about time, too.


like we didn’t already know that.


I know I did.


well, I thought it was him, and “Selma” was nowhere to be found.


glug, glug:


how much worse can he possibly make the situation?  Magic 8-ball:  “Lots worse.”


“let them catch the bus”.

And now is time for INSIGNIFICA, which are actual headlines:

     

And:


…hell, never mind her accent.  She has some offsetting qualities:

News over.  Next time, a return to the normal format.

Semi-Retraction

As Loyal Readers know, I’m always banging on about how uniform all modern cars’ designs are — “The Wind-Tunnel School of Design” — and all that.

However.

Take a look at this picture of old Los Angeles (I think, from the bus’s color), and see what you notice about the cars (right-click to embiggen):

And this before wind tunnels…

I stand corrected.

Worse Than That

At the ever-current Daily Mail, Sarah Vine asks the question:

Why are this season’s shoes hideously ugly and expensive?  If I didn’t know better, I’d say it’s like the designers are laughing at us. 

You don’t know better, and they are laughing at you.

I have long held the opinion that most fashion designers, being homosexualists, really hate and despise women.  So they design ugly clothing and shoes, and over-charge for these foul things in the certain knowledge that brainless wealthy women and celebrities will buy them just to have the over-hyped brand name on their bodies.

So much do I despise this whole business that I can safely say this:  if I arrived to pick up a date and she was wearing any — and I mean any — of the shoes pictured in the article, I’d ask her to go back and change into something prettier and more flattering;  because if I know anything at all, it’s that there is no woman alive whose feet and legs would be flattered by wearing these excrescences.

And Mrs. Vine knows this, as her final words reveal:

But really, the truth is it’s laziness, greed and a lack of imagination. These kinds of styles are cheap and easy to mass-produce.
They require zero skill or craftsmanship.
And they appeal to the only people who seem to matter to designers these days — that is to say celebrities, influencers and pop stars who don’t care what they wear, so long as it gets them noticed.

Quite right.  Here are some classics:

 

 

   

Nothing to be ashamed of, in any of them.

Great-Uncle Jimmy

Your great-uncle Jimmy was a lifelong lover of Smith & Wesson revolvers, but when he passed away, he left his entire collection to his sons.  However, in order to spread the goodness, he sent Collector’s Firearms a gift card in the amount of $2,000 in your name,  with the proviso that it could only be spent on a S&W revolver.

So feel free to peruse the lists  (old and modern) thereof, and tell me in Comments which one (or ones) you’d buy, and why.

Me, I’m partial to this old M&P, at $1,495:

The pre-war Target Models are wonderfully accurate, and while I’m not especially partial to the pearl grips, it would make a fine Governor’s BBQ gun.

A very close second would be this Model 624, at $1,395:

Not quite beautiful enough to be a BBQ gun, but damn close.  (And amazingly, .44 Special ammo is not as expensive as it used to be — or maybe it’s just that the other calibers have caught up with it.)

Expensive Bag

Followed this link from Insty for a survival first-aid kit, but on scrutinizing the contents thereof, my conclusion is that I’d be paying $70 just for a bag — because I already have all the other stuff, and more so withal.

That said:  none of it is in one place, but scattered around the house;  so Job #1 is to round it all up and put it into a bag, and I’m sure I have a spare one of those lying around somewhere, too.