No Longer Wanted

Pop Quiz: Name This Granny (answer at the end of this post).  Bonus point for guessing her current age, and no cheating with Internets.

 

Never one to shy away from the tough topics, La Paltrow has weighed in on what happens when a woman ages and loses her desirability (or, as she so charmingly puts it, “fuckability”).

‘To get wrinkles and, like, get closer to menopause, and all these things… what happens to your identity as a woman if you’re not f**kable and beautiful?’
Gwyneth firmly believes self-acceptance is key and that as you get older, your inner beauty radiates outwards.
‘Luckily, what’s happening at the same time in parallel… is you just start to like yourself’, she continued.
‘I think you get to a point where it’s almost like your sort of pulchritude is waning in a way and your inner beauty is, like, really coming out, and so it’s this funny shift that’s happening.’

This is what happens when you work in an industry that a.) has no problem with (literally) fucking children and b.) enforces impossible standards of beauty upon its workers:  of course  you begin to think that only the young can be desirable and that women lose their desirability when they age.

As with so much of what Paltrow spouts, it’s mostly bullshit.  I can think of several older women who have aged and become wrinkled, and who could get practically any heterosexual man to bed them.  And I’m not just talking about actresses, either.

Where Paltrow, as always, misses the point is that she confuses “desirability” with universal  desirability.  I’m not au fait  with the current crop of young women who are deemed “hot” by the poplar culture, but let’s just take Scarlett Johansson as someone I know was once (and may still be) considered the ultimate in female desirability.

 

She’s heading for her 35th birthday as we speak, and I think it’s safe to say that in twenty-five years’ time, she will still be quite desirable, just not universally so.

Here’s one-time paragon of beauty Sharon Stone, at age 60:

 

…and still-gorgeous Jane Seymour (at age 65):

 

But let’s ignore for the moment the fact that among actresses, skillful surgery can play a part in prolonging youth (or at least hiding the effects of age) — I have no idea whether any of the above has resorted to same, but we can play the odds — and acknowledge that while stupid men and callow youths (some overlap) are forever in thrall to the “perfect body” (as defined by, say, Playboy  magazine), many men (myself included) find that women get more interesting  as they get older.

And in my case, anyway, that’s not just a function of my getting older;  at age 30, for example, I thought that Sophia Loren (then aged 50) was the sexiest woman alive:

 

…and I’m pretty sure I wasn’t alone in that thought, either.  Now she’s nearer 85, and I’ll bet that for her age she’s still as sexy as hell, unless of course all the wheels have fallen off, so to speak.

 

And even then, some  randy old goat would… let me not go there.

I said it earlier, but it bears paraphrasing:  for a woman to be desirable to all men regardless of her age is never going to happen.  What we do know is that very few older women (with some notable exceptions) are going to be undesirable to all  men.

If Paltrow and her aging ilk are going to go all “Boo-hoo-hoo nobody wants to fuck me”, I would suggest they relocate from Hollywood (and from Southern Cal in general) and try living in a retirement community.  They’ll get more pricks than a pincushion, from all accounts.

Frankly, if Paltrow really is having a problem (and it’s not just some new PR ploy to sell more vaginal marble eggs), it’s probably because as she’s got older, she’s become increasingly more batshit crazy.  I would suggest that that, and not her wrinkled body,  is the passion strangler. Read more

Pale Shadow

It appears that while once-Great Britain has been solving problems like plastic drinking straws and imposing taxes on milkshakes (!), their navy has been allowed to deteriorate into a motley collection of rowing boats, dinghies and canoes:

The Royal Navy has only ordered one aircraft carrier, a handful of offshore patrol vessels, five submarines, and a single new frigate for the next decade as a report says its force will get even smaller.
It comes as serious questions have been raised over Britain’s ability to defend itself following Iran seizing the UK-flagged tanker Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz.

In essence, the once-proud Royal Navy has allowed a British-flagged ship to be hijacked by a bunch of ragheads in a speedboat.

Of course, Uncle Sam will probably come to Britain’s aid again in protecting the sea lanes (see:  WWI and WWII), but let’s hope that this altruism will not get in the way of the British government’s clown show (see: Brexit).

Feckless idiots.

Buycott

As stated earlier, I’ll be moving today, and you know how much stuff you need when you move in, right?  Then we have this situation:

Home Depot Co-Founder Bernie Marcus told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in a recent interview that he plans to donate a part of his fortune, which has a net worth of $5.9 billion according to Forbes, to Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. He said that although Trump “sucks” at communicating he should be given credit for boosting jobs in America and taking strong stances against China, Iran, and North Korea.
Following the article’s publication in late June, some shoppers at the home improvement supply giant expressed outrage over the 90-year-old’s decision and vowed to boycott the store. The hashtag #BoycottHomeDepot also started to emerge on social media.

But as author and political commentator Dan Bongino‏ notes:

“Liberal boycotts are a joke, just like liberals. The best thing for your business is a liberal boycott. Your sales will explode after lunatic libs announce their ‘boycott’. Just ask Chick-fil-A.”

So guess where I’ll be getting all my household hardware needs for the next week or two… and there’s a branch just a few blocks away.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ …Hi ho, hi ho… ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

Oops

Everybody told them that it was a monumentally-stupid idea;  but noooooo:

Restaurants Unlimited, a Seattle-based chain with restaurant locations in 47 US cities, announced on Sunday it was seeking Chapter 11 protection, citing “progressive” wage laws.
The company, which has operated since the Lyndon Johnson Administration, said rising labor costs—part of a national trend of government-mandated minimum increases—were part of its decision.

Note the 47 cities affected by these closures (see link).

I would feel more sorry for the soon-to-be-laid-off workers, but I’m betting that most of them supported the higher-minimum-wage idiocy in the first place, so… sucks to be them.  Maybe next time they’ll vote with their brains instead of with their greed.  (Granted, working-class people have trouble making ends meet in liberal shitholes like Seattle and San Francisco;  but the politicians who have caused the high housing prices are the same ones who pushed through the higher minimum-wage thresholds.  So there’s a double whammy here, and yet those idiot voters keep sending them back into office.)

Of course, it’ll be all Trump’s fault (according to the West Coast media).

Challenge Accepted

A whole bunch of people have been getting worried about this development:

Liberals are notoriously loath to take their own side in a fight. But their reticence may well be changing in an age of vigilante, white nationalist terror—openly condoned and supported by an incumbent president who has suggested that his armed devotees won’t stand for his removal from office. Increasingly, the antifa left is arguing—and training—in response. They are worried not only about an armed reckoning following a contested election, but also about rising violence from the paramilitaries loyal to President Donald Trump.

Such paranoid fantasies may be familiar to heavy consumers of YouTube and Reddit, but watching them transposed on to the structures of governance is a novelty. As a result, many leftists and even some liberals are beginning to reconsider their feelings about firearms, joining a loose amalgamation of gun groups, from John Brown Gun Clubs (which take their name from the abolitionist) to the Pink Pistols (an LGBTQ group), Liberal Gun Club, and Socialist Rifle Association. Some of these organizations are moderate and traditionalist, others radical and revolutionary. But all share one implicit goal: to normalize firearms ownership and training among liberals. Some of their members hope such efforts will at least make Republicans think twice before attempting a massacre.

LOL.  They must be thinking about Spanish  Republicans circa 1937 (who, by the way were Communists) and not our flabby Murkin Republicans, who couldn’t massacre the syrup at a pancake breakfast.

Seriously:  do these tools honestly think that conservatives are going to launch a massacre of Lefties in this country?  Given the de-platforming of conservative voices, attacks on people simply for wearing MAGA hats and throwing Republican civil servants out of restaurants — not to mention the Pantifa attacks on peaceful protest marches in Portland and D.C. — I would suggest that it’s the Left  who are far more likely to trigger civil violence.

Then we have this kind of picture, which some find alarming:

Yup;  he sure looks like he means business.

To my mind, though, this doesn’t make for nervousness — it makes the whole thing interesting.

Go on, Pantifa Boys:  show us what you’ve got. Let’s see how it works out for you.

Oh, and one last thought:  if all this “preparation” by the Left means they’re waiting for conservatives / Trump supporters to begin the shooting, they’re going to end up being a lot older than the graybeard in the pic above before they get to put all that training into play.  In the meatime, we have crap like this:

The climate of vigilante violence on the right has elevated racist attacks, hate crimes, and terrorism in our political culture.

What “vigilante violence”?  Fucking shitbrains are starting to believe their own lies.

Oh Boo Fucking Hoo

Cue the violins:

So Mrs. Clooney / Julia Roberts-lookalike Amal Clooney gets all whiny about The Donald putting the boot into the Jackals Of The Press:

Amal Clooney said President Trump ‘vilifies the media’ and makes journalists ‘all over the world vulnerable to abuse’ among other jabs during a multi-day conference in London.
The human rights lawyer was speaking along with British foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt on Wednesday when she made her first remark.
Without mentioning Trump by name, she said: ‘The country of James Madison has a leader today who vilifies the media, making honest journalists all over the world more vulnerable to abuse.’

Abuse, my suffering African-American asshole:  1) there’s no such thing as an “honest journalist” nowadays, and 2) never mind Twatter abuse, modern journalists should get daily ball-kickings or scourgings to get them pointed in the right direction.  Trump lets them off lightly, given their boorishness and naked partisan behavior.

And referring to my earlier comment:  ever wonder why Amal Clooney and Julia Roberts have never been seen together in the same room?

 

Face it:  if the lawyer looked like (say) Maxine Waters and was married to Wallace Shawn, the Press wouldn’t be able to pick her out of a lineup.

I can see why Clooneywife is so sensitive about the media:  without their fawning and uncritical support over the years, she’d still be signing property transfer contracts in Kabul, let alone married to Mr. Hollywood and splitting her time between an estate on the Thames and a villa on Lake Como.