What do I collect?

It's a rainy day where I reside and due to this I lost motivation to enter the outside world to finish my errands, so here I am left to think about the handful of things I collect since I was perusing through ebay.

1. college/sports pennants

I don't purchase any pennant, but the ones truly pertinent to my life, and therefore my search is quite specific. The universities I attended. My city's professional sports teams (save for the single baseball team I don't necessarily support). Out of all the things I collect pennants are my favorite. It's the history and tradition behind them that enchants me, not to mention the unique artwork that some have.


2. baseball caps

It's the same specific search that pertains to college/sports pennants. Since I wear my hat collection, if I don't completely feel comfortable wearing it outside I won't purchase it. I'm proud to say that my hat collection is quite small - I'm picky, so it helps. I know some people collect hats from every team - I don't do that, and thank goodness.


3. lapel pins & tie bars

As with the previous collections, the same rules apply on what I purchase but instead of collegiate wear, which I turn to vintage buttons, I look for vintage sports teams. I also try to purchase patriotic pins that were made in the USA, which are rare.

Tie bars are unique. They're like a watch for the tie. I can have more leeway with these so I'm not too particular on what's clipping my tie, that it just "looks good."

4. ties

I'm a sucker for ties, especially bow ties. Yep. Bow ties. I think they're awesome and I occasionally wear them in less formal situations, say on a date or just for the heck of it. Before the t-shirt became an American staple, a shirt and tie was the fashion norm.

One of my professors wore bow ties, relatively young, and I was inspired by him to wear one during commencement (which I didn't give two shits about - I just wanted to get the hell out of dodge to start my post-undergrad life) since I wanted "something different." Enter the bow tie. I haven't looked back since.

My long-ties tend to be solid colors, if not tartan, with the occasional dots (the same pattern goes for my bow ties). I don't wear regiment ties because I don't have any connection to British regiments. I absolutely avoid paisley.

Patriotic ties? Sure, I got a couple, it's just I don't wear any tie that has the American flag on it.

Speaking of patriotic/holiday ties, I'm the guy that walks into a bar on St. Patrick's Day with a green bow tie and asks for a Guinness. It's a good excuse to wear a bow tie, but even better to enjoy a fine stout.

I can't say I collect shoes because most of my shoes are purchased for practically reasons. I don't buy shoes I don't wear; there has to be a purpose for each or else I won't shell out my credit card. I'm all for well-made footwear so my shoes will be well-worn and loved before they're given to Goodwill.

5. playbills

Believe or not I'm a musical fan. My brother got me into them when I was a wee little boy. The first musical that got me enchanted was Annie and then Les Miserables. I sort of fell out of the fascination until I saw my brother perform in high school musicals.

The playbills aren't relegated to musicals, but it expands to plays, operas and ballets as well. I'm more of a play goer, though, if I had to choose between a musical or a play, with Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams producing some of my favorites.

6. movie tickets

I tend to save my stubs and I'm currently thinking of moving them from a stub specific binder to one of these.

Now I have thought of vinyl records, and I may start a collection in the near future.

When I was younger I use to collect comic books. Since then I outgrew them, at least the wanting to collect. I still admire the talent that's needed to make them. I remember being so fascinated with the characters in comic books that I made my own "superheroes," each with their own special power.

I mainly concentrated on comics that focused on Gambit, my favorite X-Men, and Superman.

For whatever reason I was drawn to the 1990s Superman comics. I believe it had to do with the color palette.


A deeper meaning to my collection

The only thing that can be deemed fragile are my pennants. Gosh darn, every time I move I want those secured and safe. Not to mention that encasing pennants is an expensive process. I'm either met with (A) not caring that much about the condition as they age or (B) being anal about their care when I pack my bags. I mean, some of them cost a pretty penny and would be considered collector items let alone heirloom pieces. 

 In fact, I want all of my collections to be worth some sentimental value when I pass away (not including the movie stubs), whether it be to someone else who arrives at my place to see what the old man has after my funeral, or to my kids and their kids.

It's always interesting to see heirlooms being used and/or being cherished and saved by a man's offspring and their lineage. It's like an old American flag on a mantle or a safety razor being used by a grandson. That sort of stuff, that type of reality.

Immigration rears its ugly head.

Okay, not "ugly" but a major irritation (of mine).

Many of the social work jobs in my city and metro require one to be bilingual. You must speak Spanish and English in order to accommodate those who cannot speak English well. If not, your resume won't even be looked at. Into the reject pile you go.

But let's start with a little story.

A few Easters ago my family and I were enjoying brunch. Near the end of our stuffing we found out our waitress and I shared the same alma mater (I didn't give two shits). She was working the holiday for extra cash because she was a bilingual elementary teacher on break. Her class had a huge population of primary Spanish speaking children.

As we talked, language came up. She, with a heavy sigh and frown, wished aloud that Americans would speak another language besides English. I quickly spoke up saying that, though a nice idea, shouldn't be pressured on Americans - it should be on non-English speaking immigrants to learn the language ASAP. I then added that other countries, like Canada and Ireland, primarily spoke English. Countries that were surrounded by other countries that spoke a different language were more likely inclined to speak their native tongue, English and maybe two other languages. Why? It's not out of curiosity or being worldly/enlightened, it was out of necessity. The balkanization of America wasn't in language.

Yes, in some parts of Canada like Quebec (Canadian) French is spoken and is mandatory. Other parts of Canada were like America on how it taught French compared to America's Spanish, mostly in high school - maybe in elementary - but competency is no better once one graduates from high school (read: almost nonexistent).

Ireland, located in the much admired Western Europe by leftists, speak mostly English. Gaelic is dying, going the way of Latin, sadly. Why does Ireland speak mostly English? Because Ireland is an isolated country. How many speak French in England? A whopping 0.28. The USA, like Ireland is isolated, only having a Spanish speaking country immediately south of the border. French, one of the mother tongues of Canada, is dominated by English speaking Canadians. A good percent of bilingual Canadians (speaking both French Canadian and English) are located in the providence of Quebec.

I have family in St. John's and the kids', whose parents are Asian immigrants, French speaking capabilities are the equivalent to the average American speaking Spanish: shitacular. They're an English speaking family first. Granted Newfoundland isn't Quebec so the French language is not pushed as hard and that the province is rather isolated - it's the Canadian version of Alaska.

I was at a health clinic that primarily served Hispanic and low-income residents. As the nurse clinician walked in the first thing she said was "Inglés o español?" I'm Asian, do I look like I speak Spanish? (I do, sorta.) I should've said "Si" so I could've messed with her mind. "Wait, you're Asian preferring to speak Spanish?" I'm not sure how long the Spanish speaking people at the clinic lived in the States, but if it was more than two years I'd be upset. 

In many ways Americans who work directly with the population, particularly in social services (teaching, social work, non-profit, receptionists, medical field) must adapt to the incoming immigrants from Mexico. Not only that, but these fields, especially social work and non-profits, are advocated for Mexicans. They see Mexicans being forced to learn English as unfair and see those who advocate it as insensitive to their plight and narrow-minded. In my state illegal immigrants, just a couple of years ago, were granted driver's licenses. Why? Cause it's a damn right and without one it creates a barrier to their goal to live the American Dream, so goes the reasoning of those that lobbied for it.

My mother, an immigrant who came to the US with wanted skills and was proficient in English, admitted that America, lately, has been bending over backwards for immigrants in almost every aspect of American life. My aunt who doesn't have a driver's license manages to get to her job via public transportation. Then again she speaks English and has wanted skills, so her mindset is different than the Mexican population at the clinic.

In many ways, advocates for "those who don't have voices" are creating safe spaces for them. They talk about conservatives alienating the non-white, non-straight, poor and female population of America (I don't entirely agree) yet they're slowly creating a balkanized nation due to language. The irony (as always with modernism).

Reading up on Medicaid.

It's inconsistent to reject an applicant if they live with their parents, say a 30 yr old woman who is unemployed and living with her parents - one working and making 100K, because the household she lives under is financially secure.

One, isn't the government practically forcing the parents to pay for their daughter's medical coverage (annual check-ups, basic vaccinations) even if the ground rules laid by the parents is to  not pay for such coverage? The daughter herself cannot pay for it since her annual income is a net zero, though she still has to file taxes regardless of her employment status. If we use the "it's inhumane for the government to 'let people die on the side of the street'" the government is not keeping its promise to provide for the daughter since she is unable to secure health coverage. Yes, the parents are letting her live under their roof, rent & utility bill free, but they will not provide no health coverage.

Two, the expansion of medicaid isn't really an expansion, just lip service.

I'll call it soccer while you spew anti-Americanisms.

I bet I mentioned this before, but I have many interests and hobbies that tend to be occupied by non-conservatives, if not leftists.

For example, I enjoy soccer. I support my city's professional team and I also support Aston Villa. American owner of Aston Villa, Ryan Lerner, released a statement of his departure from the English football team, wanting it to be owned by a more suitable person.

The reactions, for the most part, were rather negative - as they should be - but the anti-Americanism peaked its head. One poster on a soccer/football forum said that Americans should not be involved in the game and should just stick to rounders (our baseball version) and netball (basketball). I don't really have an issue with this, not that I agree, but it's paltry when it comes to indignation. But the poster went on. By "American should not be involved in the game" he also meant as players. Brad Guzan is an American goalkeeper currently playing for Aston Villa. He's been with the club for more than five years. He also mentions DeAndre Yedlin, the EPL rookie currently playing for Sunderland via loan by Tottenahm Hotspur. Interestingly enough he does not mention Everton's goalkeeper, Tim Howard. I can only guess the poster has something against Americans playing on teams trying to avoid regulation, as if their membership to their club has anything major to do with losing English football teams.

Others complained that Lerner's statement was the typical example of American sentimentalism. I never really payed much attention to this American sentimentality, but the tone I received from Lerner's statement was that of disappointment in himself. Whatever sentimentality came through it did not bother me. I am glad he's gone because he was at best mediocre and worst indifferent. It is the expression of a businessman becoming aware he isn't the right person for the job.

Unlike Leftists & Europeans, I actually spend time with my opposition.

As for the headline, many will correct Americans, calling us Yanks, saying, "It's football, not soccer." Look, don't "correct" the linguistic differences because it's pointless once we analyze it. If I said "It's hello, not hola or salut," I'd be deemed ignorant, rude and maybe xenophobic with jabs at me not having a passport (I do have a passport). If Cuba called baseball "stickball" or whatever I personally wouldn't give two shits, nor would I be offended. I know what they mean and I'd be curious on why they call it that - if they were to use such a nomenclature.

In the end the rules aren't different, just the name.

My thoughts on Michael Voris' "Limiting God" video.

I'm glad for him. Not because he needed to do it, but because he told the people - at least in own mind - that needed to hear it: fellow Catholics and watchers of Church Militant. This video was directed to a specific group, not necessarily to the world.

He "came out clean" and repented. Now that's refreshing. He didn't want an applause; he wanted forgiveness for his sins and, it seems, he has learned from his mistakes. That's something rare even in the most gifted of us.

Does it make him self-loathing? Nope. I never sensed that. After all, he is right on what he says about same-sex attraction and, for the most part, has been very charitable. Take for instance this video.

There's no doubt the LGBT activists will label him self-loathing, but they're wrong - as always, even in this case.

This video doesn't make anything of what Voris said in the past invalid because he has proclaimed the faith like saying 2+2=4, though flawed he may be. And 2+2 does equal to 4.

I believe this confession should not deter or change any goals Church Militant, Voris' youtube channel, has set to accomplish. If anything, it should garner more support by the faithful. 

To be honest, I never completely liked the man's style of broadcast. I found it, well, militant but I understood his goal and therefore was charitable. But within his style I found a person who understood the teaching's of the Catholic faith more so than her opponents, the non-Catholics and the secularists. And as they say, the best conservatives are usually ex-liberals; in Voris case, the best Catholics are usually great sinners.

I hope Voris continues to call a spade a spade, both towards the Church, keeping it honest, and towards modernism. 

Crazy things non-Catholics, atheists, agnostics and skeptics say.

On the evils of religion, Matthew Aln writes -

When I point out the evils of religion, someone points to some atheist who did some horrible thing. The problem is that religion is a set of ideas, and atheism is the rejection of those ideas. Atheism has not content. While it is consistent with some ideologies, it is not an ideology in and of itself. I can be an atheist and be a psychopath, a murderer, a warlord, but I need something else to do these things. However, if I fly a plane into a building filled with infidels believing that I will be rewarded in the afterlife, then my religious beliefs are supporting my actions. 

In other words, I don't blame Catholicism for the rape and torture of children at the hands of the catholic church. There is nothing about Catholicism or Christianity which would make this ok. I would obviously blame the church as an institution. But would I blame Catholicism for the people in Africa dying of AIDS because the church has convinced them that using condoms is a sin? Absolutely.

According to this skeptic AIDS in Africa is due to Catholicism and its ban of contraception.

The bastard goes on ...

 I will try to be polite.

You seem to be justifying your god's commandment that people kill women because they are not virgins. I find this commandment, or suggestion even, despicable, in any context. I don't care in what time you live or where you are, it is immoral to do such a thing. Note that the man does not suffer the same fate. We know why. Because the people who wrote this stuff considered women to be lesser human beings, as most religions do.
You have to rationalize this horrible, immoral and barbaric nonsense because you have shackled yourself to bronze-age mythology. You can't say the things I am saying about this stuff because you have been convinced that it is something other than the writings of a greedy, tribal band of marauders. By doing this, you have given up your own sense of morality.

I really don't understand how intelligent people can read this and think anything other than it is horrible, and honestly reject it, rather than engage in less-than-honest intellectual gymnastics to find a way to say it is something other than this.
I guess all I can do is ask that you reconsider. In one of Christopher Hitchens' last speeches before cancer took him from us, he beseeched believers to reject the idea that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority, to think of it as a poisoned chalice and push it aside. Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.

So here enters the tired old accusation: believers do no think for themselves.

But not to worry. Poster Kent Meyer calls out Aln for his sorry excuse for sound reasoning and faux enlightenment.

You keep contradicting yourself and making your arguments weak. Quoting dead poets and posting here as if they hold some truth for you doesn’t help your argument either. They cannot offer you any scientific proof of anything. Nothing you assert here is even remotely provable, while you claim that other people assertions on this forum must be proven. Your lack of consistent thinking and objectivity makes it easy to stick with my bronze age mythology.

 Yep, that's pretty par for course for a modern secularist.  Meyer continues.

At least with bronze age mythology I have hope beyond my physical lifetime. That’s the whole point of the bible, a witness to eternal life. By your own definition, you are doomed to nonexistence at your moment of physical death. There will be no demonstrable proof that you ever existed. And if there is proof then no other atheist would spend their short lived time to give it a thought anyway, too pointless, too illogical except for the fact that there is an endocrine function which might be lived out. By the evidence you offer here, your life isn’t worth living.

You speak of science and logic but you lack objective thinking. You demand proof from others but you have no proof yourself. You have contempt for the faithful but your faith is in dead philosophers. You feign moral outrage for how women were treated 3000 years ago yet show no outrage how millions of women are treated under the dictatorships in modern atheist governments.

Ive already demonstrated that by your definition your life is only worth what another person or society assigns based on their values. You still haven’t refuted that in an empirical way. If you want to limit your existence to this, you can. I already told you I fully respect that freedom. By coming on this forum and expecting, even demanding that others think the same as you, you are claiming that there is an absolute authority which you cling to. Your thought process and propaganda is typical of atheist dictatorships throughout history. All the evidence you have offered on this forum points to a life not worth living.

Mr. Aln, please go fuck yourself and hold a book club in honor of Christopher Hitchens for you feel inclined.

Let's entertain ourselves with old fogey (71 yrs of age), tired of the world and its disappointments, Pat Gannon, the out-right Catholic bigot.

I don't like Catholicism. I cheered for the anti-matter bomb to go off in Angels and Demons, but I know the roots of Christianity dug themselves into the ground with the advent of the Catholic Church whether we like it or not.

As well as -

Believers accept germ theory, gravitation, relativity, cell theory, theory of the atom, and so on, but they reject evolution for one and only one reason - because it counters their beliefs. It seems that scientists get everything right, except the things that counter religious beliefs. Have you given any consideration to the idea that it is the beliefs that are wrong? I'm not going to continue the discussion until and unless you explain what YOU believe, so I know what I'm dealing with here.

Um, cranky old-man Gannon, the RCC doesn't reject evolution nor does evolution counter Catholic belief. You don't know what you're dealing with because you're too caught up in your stupidity and your ego. But, if I may say so, I know what CAF is dealing with -- a cranky, old-man who's bored out of his fucking skull because he totally sucks as life. Plus, if there's no God why does picking the brains of Catholics matter to you? You're just acting as a bully, trying to fill the hours with some meaning on a piece of rock floating through dark, infinite space. When your body fails you and when you're buried your life, if we borrow worldview, is utterly pointless and your determination to figure Catholics and their religion is just mere entertainment in the grand scheme of things.

You know they have an agenda.

Sociology Phil Zuckerman, an atheist, says that children in secular households turn out better than kids raised in religious homes.

Studies are lauded when it shows that children come from same-sex households "show no difference" when compared to kids raised with a mother and father. In fact, the narrative goes even farther: kids raised in same-sex households sometimes turn out better.

Studies like the Mark Regnerus study showing that same-sex households raising kids are worse? You get sites like TheRegnerusFallout.com coming into existence. You get a very disdainful sociology professor at SIU (who has a blog that shows his true side) tearing it apart. You get a governing body of social research to send a professor, said SIU professor,  to vet every page.

I mean, really?

The end goal is to officially establish The New Normal.

We have young couples in San Francisco, opposite sex, who wish that their kids turn out to be LGBT because it'll be more interesting and they'll score extra points for being so open-minded towards their LGBT child.

We have people calling couples of the opposite "breeders."

And we have pissed off college students who actually believe in "white privilege."

These people don't need (sound) studies or debate. All they need is momentum. 

Atheism & Youtube

There are many posters on Youtube who are atheists and their channel is solely dedicated to their religion. Yes, their religion.

Cult of Dusty
Jaclyn Glenn
The Non-Believer
The Amazing Atheist

I enjoy their thoughts. They make me laugh. More, I enjoy their bios.

Let's look at one youtube atheist called Atheism-Is-Unstoppable's bio.

Just another step in the all too important process of shaking free from our ignorant, patently moronic and barbaric history, this channel serves to openly point out the laughable nature of religious thought, expose it for it's absurdity and falseness and push the needle towards rational thought and sanity.

The mission, if there was one, is to rally together people who have the cognitive wherewithal to figure out that there are no invisible sky daddies, or elves, or unicorns for that matter. To stand up and be counted as someone who isn't obviously deluding himself for the sake of feeling cozy and happy at night, or for the pursuit of the grand daddy prize of any narcissist, eternal life. The point is to give voice, a loud, unafraid, and strong voice to those that would use reason and critical thought  - to those that actually value science and evidence.

 I am just a guy who saw The Life Of Brian as a child, and figured it out. This isn't rocket science, people.

Ahhh. The bitter yearning for an evolved and sophisticated future as we slowly leave our "ignorant, patently moronic and barbaric history." Sanity? Who defines sanity? The irony here is that AISU projects the same "be counted and let your voice be heard" as The Left when it comes to suppose oppression and unfairness while numerous channels he subscribes to are critical of the The Left.

He then goes on accusing Christians of narcissism for their quest for eternal life. Given that many Christians are rather generous with their money and Christians were the ones who helped establish universities, hospitals and orphanages AISU displays his own ignorance. He also comes across as narcissistic.

Did I mention the "be counted and let your voice be heard"? I did, but I want to add on something to that. He goes full retard and borrows the LGBT mantra, sorta - "give voice, a loud, unafraid and strong voice to those that would use reason and critical thought - to those actually value science and evidence." Hmmm. Love is love. Gender is a social construct. Ones sex when raising a child doesn't really matter (two people of the sex is better for a child!). The last greatly relies on social sciences which is known to be political charged and has replication problems.

How about Non-Believer?  Okay, let's take a look.

This channel is documentation of the evolution of me. You can see my views on certain topics changing as I get more into my anti-theism. This is a good thing and I recommend everyone to have an open mind and not be set in their ways.  I am all about breaking down barriers and will never skirt the real issues in the world. I yell a LOT! I also get up close and personal and talk to you on a human level. I am not just another YouTuber that screams, or pretends to be something I am not. What you see, is me.

If you tolerate the intolerance, I do not tolerate you. YOU are the fucking problem. Keep enabling these irrational, 1st-7th century beliefs. See where that gets us as a society.

If you enjoy someone losing their fucking minds, subscribe to my channel and I will NOT disappoint!

Don't be set in your ways, guys! Did you hear that? Because if you weren't you wouldn't be a believer. You got to mix it up. You got to move around. You got to wear a different pair a sneakers Fridays. Wear green instead of referring to your usual blue. Change, guys. Change.

At least this Gnu admitted he's an anti-theist. I like the "close and personal and talk to you on a human level" after he says he yells alot.

"Hey, despite that I'm a nice guy. So any chicks out there want my number, just ask!"

 And he's a real person. How real? He pleads that he isn't "just another Youtuber that screams, or pretends to be something" he's not.  What you see it what you get. How refreshing.

The indignant pro-LGBT strikes again.

Professional sports is a business (don't forget that MLS and socialist fans). Associations like the NBA, MLS and the NHL have agreements with "watchdogs" to suspend and crack down on supposedly anti-LGBT words and statements. By doing this they at least can't be deemed a bigot or hateful, free from the grasps of the Stonewall activists.

Chicago Blackhawks forward, Andrew Shaw, is the latest victim of this "watchdog." Shaw, according to a clip, says, "Fuck you, you fucking faggot." It's not audible but you can make out the words pretty clearly.

CHICAGO -- Chicago Blackhawks forward Andrew Shaw has been suspended one game and ordered to undergo sensitivity training after uttering an anti-gay slur from the penalty box to someone on the ice in Chicago's Game 4 loss at home to the St. Louis Blues.
Shaw was also fined $5,000 for "directing an inappropriate gesture" at the on-ice officials. He will miss Game 5 in St. Louis on Thursday when the Blues, who are up 3-1 in the series, will try to knock the defending Stanley Cup champions out of the playoffs.

"While Mr. Shaw was apologetic and remorseful for both the offensive comments and the inappropriate gesture directed at the on-ice officials, he must be held accountable for his actions," NHL senior executive vice president of hockey operations Colin Campbell said in a statement. "The emotion of the moment cannot and will not be a mitigating factor for the conduct that is expected of an NHL player."

"He must be held accountable for his actions." Wow. Apparently issuing a public apology and being find $5, 000 is a little much.  All of a sudden the PC moral police are out in full force in professional sports.

Shaw was sent off for interference at 17 minutes, 56 seconds of the third period, hurting Chicago's chance for a comeback in what ended up being a 4-3 loss. While sitting in the box, Shaw pounded on the glass with his stick and then yelled at someone on the ice. As video of the incident spread online, the You Can Play project, a group supporting inclusiveness in athletics, swiftly tweeted that it was planning to contact the NHL.

After the game, Shaw was asked twice about what happened and said he didn't remember.

"Being like I just said -- I'll repeat myself for you -- emotions are high,'' he said. "I don't know what was said. Obviously I was upset with the call. I wasn't happy with the call."
A day later, Shaw said he saw the video after he returned home from the arena and said he was "sincerely sorry for the insensitive remarks that I made."

Anyone who has played sports in a halfway decent league knows that there's tension and players get pissed at one another and at the referee. The players, and coaches, say things out of anger. It's clear that Shaw's outburst was out of frustration and not geared towards the LGBT community. It wasn't even geared to a player with the suspicion of him not being straight.

"I apologize to many people, including the gay and lesbian community, the Chicago Blackhawks organization, Blackhawks fans and anyone else I may have offended," he said. "I know my words were hurtful, and I will learn from my mistake."

The team said it was "extremely disappointed" by the incident. Shaw scored a goal in the second period and had two assists in the loss, which left the defending Stanley Cup champions on the brink of elimination.

Extremely disappointed. Huh. Interesting. What's more interesting is what follows.

The team recently highlighted its partnership with You Can Play, which lobbies for equal and respectful treatment of all athletes without regard to sexual orientation. Defenseman Niklas Hjalmarsson and goaltender Scott Darling participated in a video supporting the group's mission.

"Our team pledges to support all our coaches, teammates and fans," Darling says in the video. "We believe that athletes should be judged by their character, work ethic and talent, not their sexual orientation or gender identity."

True about being judged by work ethic, character and talent, but it's a rather insidious move on You Can Play's part. It's a play on one's psyche to begin with. By making sexuality trivial on the field, as it should be, it also greatly helps in being non-thinking when it comes to supposed "rights."

You Can Play issued a statement after the suspension was announced.

"All of us at You Can Play were saddened and offended to see Andrew Shaw's use of homophobic slurs during an NHL game. We wholeheartedly support the NHL's decision to discipline Mr. Shaw," it read. "After four years of working with You Can Play, NHL players can no longer use ignorance as an excuse for not understanding the power of their words and the effect they have on their teammates, fans, and the LGBT community.

We look forward to continuing our partnership with the NHL, the Blackhawks, and Mr. Shaw as we work to finally eradicate homophobia in hockey culture."

So here's the watchdog: You Can Play. It's not just a watchdog but it has dictated the rhetoric of players on and off the ice. 

A national television audience heard former NBA star Kobe Bryant shout the same slur in 2011 at a referee he thought had made a bad call during a basketball game. Chicago Bulls center Joakim Noah yelled it at a Miami Heat basketball fan who had been antagonizing him during a game a month later. Both quickly apologized, and the NBA hit them with large fines: Bryant was fined $100,000, and Noah was fined $50,000.

Also in the NBA, Sacramento Kings point guard Rajon Rondo was suspended one game in December for using the slur as he berated official Bill Kennedy, who subsequently came out as gay. Major League Baseball in 2014 suspended Yunel Escobar, then a shortstop with the Toronto Blue Jays, for stenciling the word, in Spanish, onto his eye black.

The LGBT has become the beloved protected class, competing against blacks for the "Biggest Victim" winner.

Like MLB, the NHL has never had an openly gay player on an active roster. The founder of You Can Play, Patrick Burke, works in the NHL's player safety office. He has championed the LGBT cause and said earlier this year that he has met gay players through the years who have been on active NHL rosters.

Unless there has been noted violence and blackballing towards non-straight professional athletes Burke's motivation to police and fine speech that is deemed anti-LGBT is highly ironic. Then again The Left is highly contradictory and non-thinking. Here's Burke's bio -

Patrick currently attends law school at New England Law of Boston while residing in the city.  The 2010 Co-Sportsperson of the Year for Outsports.com, Patrick’s advocacy is done as an on-going tribute to his late brother Brendan, who was one of the first people associated with the National Hockey League to come out as openly gay.  Brendan also served as the student manager for the Miami University ice hockey team, and the love and acceptance shown by his teammates and family is an on-going inspiration for the sports world.

 So he's doing this for his late brother. How touching. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The site that hosts his bio, Changing the Game (let's not make it so obvious now), is a pro-LGBT sports site dedicated to sensitizing players that being part of the LGBT community is A-OKAY. Now, as I said, if there were constant reported incidents where LGBT athletes have been met with violence and blackballing then I can see where they're coming from, but this is just an indignant movement. The founder of the site, Pat Griffin, is a lesbian who was a collegiate athlete who later competed in the Gay Games IV & V. The fact that Griffin goes around the country to speak on behalf of her sexuality isn't proof of the bigotry of professional sports, let alone sports, but of her own insecurity.

In a game where grown men are allowed to repeatedly punch each other in which the game is temporarily suspended, it's amusing that players can't express frustration - at least frustration that was never intended to malign.

The comments were rather refreshing for a change, but there were people who have bought into the "those are bad words and bad thoughts" mentality. Take for instance Peter Nygaard said -

 I just wonder how many of the people commenting about the NHL going soft would be saying the same things if he'd been suspended for using the N-word.

Doug Roberts who responded to another saying that gay/faggot, though slurs, aren't on the same level of the n_gger -

Nah, I doubt it was as well. But the point of the whole thing is to understand that the word is similarly offensive and that we ought to try to get it out of our day-to-day vocabulary.

Are any of these people religious? Such a puritan lot. So clean and proper. Victorian, even.

Davor Danvenski writes -

I am absolutely for LGBT rights. We still have a long ways to go until the LGBT community get treated fairly, as everyone else, but if Shaw gets one game for a slur, then Bellemare should get more than one game for his intentional hit on Orlov. That hit could have easily ended Orlov's career. It could have easily ended with Orlov being paralyzed. Just my view.

Given that LGBT "rights" aren't the focus of the ESPN article it's safe to say that this is the knee-jerk reaction to anyone that supports LGBT "rights." It's purely an emotional thing, a of course I'm for LGBT rights, I mean, they're just like you and me! He then goes on, like every good Ally, that there is a "long ways to go" until true equality and diversity is achieved. The scary thing is is that it's not just in policy that the Danvenskis of the world want. It's thought as well. It's the changing of social norms. It's the changing of institutions. It's the implementation that "LGBT is good" on every societal level and in every mind in America. It's a purge. It's a quiet revolution.

Davenski didn't articulate what he meant by "long ways to go until the LGBT community get treated fairly," but since he expressed such thoughts I will put it against him and his kind that they are Cultural Marxists. Obergefell v Hodges wasn't enough. It didn't satiate his hunger. It's as if Hitler has risen and has a goal to achieve.

Where's Milo Yiannopoulos when you need him?

A Texas pastor ordered a cake from Whole Foods, asking to have "Love Wins" written. The cake decorator went above and beyond his duties, though.

"The attorneys for Pastor Jordan Brown said he ordered a cake from a Whole Foods store with the personalized message "Love Wins," but when he received it, the cake said "Love Wins F**."'

 Whole Foods is popular with urban yuppies and "raw food" eaters who tend to lean left on economic and social issues, so this was a little funny. But then again Christians are publicly mocked (SNL, Modern Family, Law & Order, academia) and it doesn't become national news. The word "fag/faggot" has become to the new n-word in terms of that word of socially unacceptable pejoratives. 

Sewanee caves into the feminists.

Over at Ivy Style, editor-in-chief Christian created a wonderful post about the joyous day of commencement at the University of the South, or simply known as Sewanee. It's a marvelous tribute to the tightness of the campus and to the well-dressed students.

But all was not well.

The post was so marvelous that Sewanee put it on their facebook page, only for it to be later taken down due to backlash of how the students were described. As Christian writes -

"So I was monitoring Google Analytics and social media today, and Sewanee put up a link to this post on its Facebook page, leading to another giant traffic spike that lasted for several hours.

Initial comments on FB were proud and positive. Then the feminists started complaining. I say feminists because the most vocal used that term in reference to her studies, and said she felt “erased” by the quote from the reader who said the female students in the post from last fall looked “ladylike.”

Several others complained that this post is sexist because of the terms “ladylike” and “fresh-faced and pretty.”

I went out for a couple hours and when I got back the link and discussion thread had been removed from Sewanee’s Facebook page."

The feminists are on every campus, even if it's in The South. It's almost a guarantee that someone will be offended if you give words that are complimentary to a woman that is genteel in nature. I can only assume that this is seen as a sin because, if I wear my feminist cap, unconsciously puts women "in a box" and creates images of a picket fence, marriage and - I dunno - slimness. A housewife may have popped into their feminist head alongside submissiveness. Modern day feminists don't like that.

Maybe they were triggered and thought that Christian's words were hints of sexual harassment.

What else? Fresh-faced and pretty. As suppose to what, hot? Babe? Bangable? Fuckable? Dour?

Maybe those that complained want the words like "independent," "strong," "empowered" as descriptive words instead of "fresh-faced and pretty." There's no doubt in my mind that the "fresh-faced and pretty" women captured in the Sewanee photos would describe themselves as such.

As a guy, I greatly prefer "fresh-faced and pretty." Add in "ladylike" as well. I suggest that you don't erase such a standard, or else you risk the future of young women not knowing was "ladylike" is and what it entails. You also don't want young men who have forgotten what being a gentlemen is, because without a lady, a gentleman would be incomplete - in some way.

EDIT: Since the Ivy Style Sewanee post was taken down from the university's Facebook page, a handful of students have ventured to the site and have expressed their views.

Students, Isabella Lilly and Rachel Head, wrote the following -

Speaking of privilege -

EDIT 4: I've met this mentality before - the scoffing off when someone mentions political correctness. That person was a homosexual. Go figure.

I've written back to most of these losers and I said that opposing views have taken into account the microaggression brigade. The reason why they're mad is because the "fellows" (the clowns, creeps and bores at Ivy Style) won't apologize; C'13 and his crowd are bitter because people actually stand up to their shit. The irony.

Come up with a better argument before you decide to pick a fight with your better-equipped peers online.

 You mad, bro?

I'm not sure what's so "short-sighted" about the article since it really didn't say anything about the university or student body besides acknowledging the sense of community and pride that permeates the pictures. It's obvious that C'13 is not up-to-date on the tracking and discussions about the feminist/microaggression crowd done by conservative blogs (see: College Fix, Minding the Campus) and think tanks (see: Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute, YAF) and that the disparages are not without thought. Also note the arrogance of the poster. He believes that Isabella's and Rachel's posts were excellent counters to the article, and that the disparages are shallow.

This fucker actually believes that his indignant side is the "A-Team." He actually thinks that the people who expressed disagreement are in over their heads.

Then we get into some "you've been token up' heavily, eh?" territory.

EDIT 2: Paula Jones cared to join.

If you tell off the feminists, accusing them being "PC Stalinists," and refuse to apologize, you're the delicate snowflake according to poster "Ol' Nippy" -

"Me thinks the overly sensitive ones are the clowns calling out the “PC Stalinist” crowd. Who is the real snowflakes here?"

We got cunts who want to throw out all the accusations and then some. They're in the right. They aren't the snowflakes. You can't win because they aren't honest and they don't practice logic.

Clowns? Bores? These are all used to mock, denigrate, and silence the people they deem ill equipped to handle important discussion.

Note: Both C'13 and Paula use "better equipped" when referring those - and I don't who they're referring to - that no doubt feed their psychological imbalance.

EDIT 5: Sewanee student "Paul [Gibson] Naumann" issued this set of posts -

Since the article featured mostly whites (maybe he expected to see more minorities?) he accuses his own campus of having "white male privilege." Given a quick google search and if I can derive anything from his name, Naumann is white himself. As I try to make sense of his first post he's also accusing the article of having racist and classist undertones because it pictures mostly white and well-dressed students.

Naumann is the same student who wrote this student piece back in 2013. The topic? Douchebag frat boys and sexism. The boy even says that men assert their male privilege in the workforce and depend on it to get ahead while females have to work harder. Given his writing ability Naumann has demonstrated that he's a dumbass.

In his article Naumann posits that since the university's Alpha Phi Omega chapter, alongside others, is led by women that "male excellence" is debunked. I was in APO at my university and there were more females than male members, about 70-30 ratio. During my undergraduate years my chapter's president was male and then I later become president. Unless there's an even distribution of male to female at Sewanee's chapter, and that a male lost an executive position to the eventual winner who so happens to be female, Naumann's premise just doesn't work. He then accuses SGA (Student Government Association) of sexism since it's been dominated by males - too closed minded and lazy to elect a female. (Are we talkin' Hillary Clinton here?) That's weird, because Mizzou's SGA's executive board is led by a male. Yes, the Peyton Head who rang a false alarm about seeing a KKK member on campus. Not only does Mizzou has to deal with BLM, but also sexism! Naumann better give the heads-up to Mizzou! Right the wrong! What's strange is that Sewanee has more female students then male. I'm not aware of SGA at Sewanee being accused of male bias in the past, so I think Naumann is seeing things that only he sees due to his poorly developed brain.

Isabella and Rachel probably know each other. C'13 and BB c'17 probably have some ties to said students. Same with Paula. Paul is the perfect white knight.

#FogeyGate