Olivia Sprauer = 'cause you know I love the b&w stuff

And also because I haven't posted anything recently about the world's hottest english teacher®

Camille Paglia = kinda in my cool book

A little while back, liberal writer Camille Paglia took a pretty decent shot at the inevitable rise of Hillary Clinton to her destined role in the White House. Writing in Salon, Paglia says:

"It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts."

"As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, 'What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?'"

A pretty solid salvo coming from someone on the left. But then just recently, with the Miley Cyrus/VMA's outrage du jour dialed up to 11, Paglia pretty much comes to what I think is the right conclusion about the whole thing -- it just wasn't sexy:

"But the real scandal was how atrocious Cyrus’ performance was in artistic terms. She was clumsy, flat-footed and cringingly unsexy . . . Madonna’s provocations were smolderingly sexy because she had a good Catholic girl’s keen sense of transgression. Subversion requires limits to violate."

She finished up by correctly pointing out that the awkward performance betrayed the "...childishness of Cyrus’ notion of sexuality."

In the time.com article, Paglia cites Madonna's "Vogue" video as the height of the singer's combination of artistic style and sexiness. I would respectfully disagree on that point. I believe the video for "Respect Yourself" was much better. The song was stronger and more dynamic, and the video with its "Metropolis" vibe was inspired. The subtle shadings and color, the retro avant-garde look of the set -- fabulous. And it was sexy too, using some old school restraint with implied nudity and subtle bondage/dominance themes. It pushed the boundaries in an artistic way. Quite possibly my favorite video of all time.

And exactly the opposite of Miley's performance. Driving home the point that she doesn't have any artistic influences other than the barren wasteland of social media. There's something to be said for reading classic literature, watching classic old movies, and so on. If you don't have a foundation to build upon, you're just going to end up flailing away and making a mess.

Kinda like we just saw the other night.

Late night hotness

See, this is where I go "Need some help with that?"

I see now . . . it's Gene Haas' fault

Last year when I learned that Kevin Harvick was moving to Stewart-Haas Racing, I was initially hoping that meant a four car team at SHR. But Stewart said that wasn't the case, SHR wasn't ready to expand yet. That meant that Tony's other buddy, Ryan Newman, would be out of a job at the end of 2013.

Background was that Newman was losing a few sponsors, and Harvick would bring Budweiser aboard with their monster checkbook. Sponsorship dollars is the lifeblood of auto racing, and Tony's no fool -- he needs bucks as well as talented drivers to be successful. I thought that sucked, still do in fact, but I accepted it as part of the business. A yucky part, but still . . .

So I'm a bit taken aback this morning when I pick up the paper and see that Kurt Busch is joining SHR on a fourth team.

?!?!

When I got off work, I shot over to NASCAR's crappy website (yes, it is crappy, too many widgets and doodads, just give me the news guys, okay?) and there's a couple of stories about Busch joining SHR. And there's the kicker buried a few paragraphs in -- co-owner Gene Haas went behind Tony Stewart's back and brought Busch on board!

Apparently, Haas is a big fan of Busch, and with Kurt's contract up at Front Row at the end of this year, ole Gene figured he better get in there quickly and snap Busch up. Using his own company, Haas Automation, as a sponsor, SHR is now a four car team. They're having to expand the shop to accommodate the extra team (plus a padded room for Busch according to Greg Zippadelli) and reports are that resumes are flooding in to fill the new crew positions as well.

Haas admits in interviews that Stewart wasn't pleased at the news. I guess not. Tony had to let his buddy Newman go, telling him they couldn't afford an extra team, and now his co-owner just ups and bogarts him by picking up Busch. I think it's a good thing Tony's stuck in a hospital bed with his broken leg, because I can imagine the fireworks that might have erupted otherwise.

Not sure how this will all play out in 2014. That's three very "alpha" dogs under one roof there, and where that leaves Danica is a good question as well. Kind of painfully obvious, but this will either be lightning in a bottle or a complete disaster for SHR.

damn

Miley Cyrus at the VMA's

Okay, I've just got to come out and say this . . . so what?

I mean really. Is that really the most shocking thing anyone's seen on television? I doubt it. Is anyone really that shocked that Miley came out and let her freak flag fly on prime time? If so, where the eff have you been the last two years? She's been building up to this since for a while. And it's also important to note here -- Miley's 20 years old, it's not like she's a teenager anymore.

Look, I'm not condoning that hack-fest. But what were you expecting from MTV? Their tired shtick is this faux "pushing the envelope" bit. They've got a history of that, everyone expects it, it was Miley's turn this year, so there ya go.

Years ago, Madonna came out in a bustier and bridal veil and sang "Like a virgin" and people went nuts. It wasn't that shocking. But for some reason, folks just had to be outrageously outraged over something. At least in Madonna's case, she's an excellent dancer and a service-able singer.

Britney had her turn as the shock du jour. She couldn't and still can't sing a lick, but she was a hell of a dancer. Christina can bring the house down singing, and dances quite well too. But Miley . . . we don't really know what she can do yet, do we?

Since shedding her Hanna Montana image, her music has been searching for a direction. She's got a whiskey/smoker's kind of voice, but doesn't seem to want to play to that. She's hooked into the hip-hop stuff now, which is more talking than singing. And as far as dancing -- other than that horrible white girl twerking she does, the jury's still out on that as well.

What she is is another of those Disney chicks escaping the farm and running wild exploring her new found freedom. At the VMA's she didn't show any skin except her skinny ass hanging out of that vinyl diaper thingy she was wearing. The furor over her rubbing her ass on whatshisname Thicke is a bit over done.

Out of everything I saw in that opening medley, only using that foam finger like a penis seemed a bit too much to me. And get over the tongue, girl. It's not sexy. Keep it in your mouth, k?

And everyone else . . . calm the eff down! You're playing right into Miley's and MTV's hands. You want to stop this stuff, quit talking about it.

The Liberty Amendments = my thoughts

I finally finished Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments today. What do I think? Glad ya asked. heh

I don't listen to talk radio, so I'm only familiar with Levin through the various snippets that get posted to other people's blogs. He always seemed so animated about a particular subject, that I just assumed he was this high-octane purveyor of conservative philosophy. The book liner notes say he is an attorney with a B.A. from Temple and a J.D. (no idea what that is) from Temple Law School. His writing is remarkably literate and I love his knowledge of the founders/framers, whether it is natural or he has to dig out references, it's pretty impressive to this layman.

As I mentioned in an earlier post on the book, it is a fairly cumbersome read only because of the copious quoting from the founders. I imagine that many readers will simply gloss over that stuff, feeling it to be redundant or not necessary to one's understanding of what Levin is proposing vis a vis his Amendments. I enjoyed reading the quotes throughout, as I mentioned, and it actually makes me want to read more of their thoughts on the framing of the Constitution. Whether that was Levin's purpose or not, I think there is value in everyone re-acquainting themselves with the thoughts of the founders/framers during these trying times.

That said, Levin's idea is to use a little known part of Article V that allows for the States to propose and adopt Amendments to the Constitution, bypassing Congress altogether. There is gridlock in Congress to be sure, though I do not subscribe to the lie of Republican obstructionism peddled in the left-wing press. But the assault on our personal freedoms and the "death by a thousand cuts" of the Constitution must be halted some way. I think Levin might be on to something here.

Levin also proposes a series of Amendments (hence the name of the book) to restore the country to the idea of the founders/framers. He has stated in interviews that his Amendment proposals are just his idea, and he hopes they are a jumping off point for debate on the idea. But they are pretty well thought out in this layman's opinion.

Two of my favorites are term limits for Congressmen and term limits for Supreme Court Justices. The latter also comes with a mechanism to overturn Supreme Court rulings via super-majority override by the States or Congress. He makes the good point in the book that the country is not supposed to be held hostage to a tiny cabal of un-elected jurists who legislate from the bench with impunity.

He also suggests the usual conservative/libertarian favs about balanced budget and a flat tax, limits to the size of the Federal bureaucracy and protecting the vote via i.d.'s.

If there's anything that might cause problems it is his continued use of ObamaCare as an example of legislation run amok. Now, granted that is totally correct, but lefties and those in the press that will seek to demonize Levin and his work, should this get any traction, will complain that it is more of the usual Republican haterism directed at the President's signature program. Their complaints will be that Levin seeks to completely overhaul the government simply to shut down Obamacare, so look what a wacko nutjob he is, etc. It just seems like a bit of a mis-step to me in an otherwise well thought out book.

Conservatives should read this book and I think that Libertarians will be drawn to Levin's ideas as well as he is promoting much less government interference in our personal lives, seeking to return the country to a minimal central government with more power at the state level where it is most responsible to the people.

If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. And after reading it, you should share it with your friends and probably suggest it to your Congressmen and State Legislators as well. Not unlike the Tea Party of three years ago, we need a ground-up, grass-roots wave of activism if we're going to save our country and ourselves from what looks like a disastrous slide into bankruptcy and chaos. And Levin's ideas here are an excellent platform to build from.

Update:
Here's a little something I ran across today. It is John Hayward's review of Levin's book. Like most, I came across Hayward's writing when he first appeared under the nom de web of Doc Zero. He's an excellent, insightful writer and his review of Levin's book is much better than mine. Below is a podcast of Levin reading Hayward's review word for word. If you've never heard Levin on the radio, you'll see what I was talking about in the beginning of my review -- his vocal projection seems quite at odds with the quiet deliberateness of his writing.
Enjoy :-)

Sox take two of three from the Dodgers

Boston won their 26th series (tops in baseball) yesterday beating L.A. 8-1 and regained sole possession of first place in the A.L. East in the process.

Jake Peavy (who always reminds of me of Jeremy Renner) went complete game, allowing 3 hits, striking out 5 and only walking one. The other Boston starters in the series also had good nights as John Lackey also went complete game in his 2-0 loss and Jon Lester went 8 innings for his win.

Mike Napoli hit a monster 2-run shot and Salty added an opposite field 2-runner himself. Both guys are favs of mine and I'm happy to see them have good games. Napoli's been struggling for a while and with a couple days off, seems to have come back with a vengence, hitting for power and average. Nice to see Salty, who's leading the team in doubles, still hitting some homers and he's finally starting to get some credit for being good behind the plate as well. With Ross back to give him the occasional day off, I'm expecting a good rest of the season from the big catcher.

There was a lot of chatter prior to this road trip that this was where the Rays would finally overtake Boston and get a solid hold on first. Instead, the Rays are right where they started with the Sox holding a one game lead after going 4-2 on the trip and now return home to face the Orioles.

Remarkably, a team that was projected by all the supposed brilliant baseball minds to finish dead last in the division, has been in first solely, tied or only a 1/2 game out since May. This is a scrappy, hard-playing team that wants to win bad. I'm not a big fan of the Grizzly Adams beards, but there's a vibe with these guys not unlike the "cowboy up" version of the Sox that won the 2004 series. How cool would it be for them to win it all this year after the two year nightmare they've endured?

Sarah smile

Saw this online the other day and got a chuckle out of it:

Pity the left has done such a good job weaponizing Sarah Palin, I doubt there is anyone on the right that has her savvy gift of working with social media. And conservatives could use a candidate who can communicate with younger voters through media they frequent.

Late night hotness

Mmmm . . . goth-y goodness

More prescient brilliance from the founders

Still slogging through Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments. In his chapter about creating an amendment to protect private property he quotes founder John Adams who could very well be talking about the Occupy movement or our current class warfare promoting President and his water carriers in the press:

Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted.

What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

I don't want to sound like a broken record here -- it's just that I continue to be amazed at the . . . what . . . timelessness perhaps, of the founder's comments on society. I suppose it is sort of tragic that if men like Adams and Franklin were saying things such as what I've quoted so far over 200 years ago, and those conclusions are drawn on observations of past societies, that we have not progressed very far as a species in that we're headed in exactly the direction they warned about.

Lena Dunham in a bikini . . . sorry

The season 3 trailer for the mystifyingly popular Girls is out and features at one point, the lead actress/creator/writer for the show in a bikini as seen above.

Canny marketing here as Dunham's less-than-perfect body is bringing out both sides of the spectrum in comments. My personal favorite was put out when the show first came out as one reviewer stated that Girls was the only cable series where fans were rooting for the lead character to keep her clothes on.

heh

Predictably, the usual suspects (gay celeb bloggers, liberals, etc.) are lining up to defend Dunham's bikini escapade, claiming the usual haterism on the part of those maligning her for flaunting her un-model-like physique and saying that there's nothing wrong with her being comfortable in her own skin and owning who she is inside and out.

No problems there. But here's my thing -- Dunham doesn't just own who she is, she tries to push who she is on everyone else. She produces political advertisements for Obama, she's on Twitter and Facebook pushing her idea of what's correct in politics and throws shade at whoever disagrees with her or is on the other side of a political position.

So if that's her thing, as I said -- no problem. But better have thick enough skin because if you're going to put yourself out there, better be able to take a few shots.

Mark Martin to drive the #14 for the rest of the season

As correctly predicted here [backpat] Tony Stewart will be out for the remainder of the 2013 NASCAR season. News out today says that Stewart has reached a deal to put Mark Martin in the #14 for remaining races except for Talledega, which will have Austin Dillon back in the car again.

I think this is a great deal for everyone involved. Martin is not only well liked and respected in the garage, he's still a hell of a driver. Had he not run out of gas on the white flag lap, it would have been Martin celebrating last Sunday at MIS instead of Logano.

Also well known, but not always talked about, is Martin's ability to mentor and work with drivers of all ages and experience levels. And I'm looking at Danica right here. She's done okay in her rookie season, but hasn't had the big increase in performance I thought she might have had by this point in her career.

It's possible there is no there there with Danica, but I doubt it. I believe she'll benefit from having Martin's avuncular tutelage in the garage on a daily basis.

I'm also pulling for Martin 'cause he's an old guy like me. And I'm always up for us old f*ckers getting a chance to show the young kids we can still get it done. So here's hoping (and expecting) to see Martin in the winner's circle sometime over the next 14 races.

Rule 5 Sunday -- Stacey Dash

This week's Rule 5 beauty is the lovely and brave Stacey Dash. Lovely because . . . well, that's sort of obvious isn't it. But the brave part comes from her willingness to go against the liberal lock-step that pervades Hollywood. Stacey has proudly gone public on many occasions with her conservative views and suffered the usual hate-filled backlash from the supposedly tolerant left for it. And yet she hasn't backed down. Good for her.

Recently she let the goddess Oprah have it, condemning the wealthy entertainer for her shameful race-baiting during the promotion of her new factually challenged movie. Beauty, guts, conservative . . . what's not to like about Stacey?

*click on the thumbnails for full-sized images*

Rule 5 Sunday suggested by this.

Hat tips:
Jake Finnegan
The Daley Gator
The Classic Liberal
Say Anything Blog
Proof Positive
Reaganite Republican

How amazing were our founding fathers?

I recently purchased Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments and began reading it today. It's a surprisingly heavy read only because Levin copiously quotes from the founding fathers in each chapter as his point is to bring us back, as a country, to the principles and core values set out in the Constitution.

Having been out of school since the 70s, my remembrance of the writings of those who founded the country is hazy at best. It's been funny to read this much of them again and I'm struck by how articulate and well spoken they come across.

And . . . is it prescience? Or is the world always headed in the same direction with mankind occasionally fighting like mad to turn to a different course?

In the section on term limits, Levin quotes Benjamin Franklin from James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 and I excerpt some of that here:

"And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence...It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers...there is a natural inclination in mankind to Kingly Government. It sometimes relieves them from Aristocratic domination. They had rather have one tyrant than five hundred. It gives more of the appearance of equality among Citizens, and that they like. I am apprehensive therefore, perhaps too apprehensive, that the Government of these States, may in future times, end in a Monarchy."

When we look at the current administration, with our supposed Constitutional scholar at the helm . . . you could fill web page after web page with Obama's disregard for, and blatant violation of, the very document he was sworn to uphold. Over two hundred years ago, the founders saw this coming. We consider ourselves so evolved, so much more intelligent and advanced than those who came and fought and died to create this country and yet we cannot see what's happening right before our eyes.

But they suspected it. Way back then. Like I said -- it's either simply amazing that they suspected this would come and put in place mechanisms to protect us and the country from falling, or it's pathetic that we have failed to appreciate what was given us and have headed down the predictable path to disaster.

But it has idiot lights . . .

So I'm on vacation this week, 'cause my birfday falls in here, and just doing stuff around the house, I'm not driving my car all that much. Get ready to go grocery shopping last night around 5:00, jump in hit the starter . . . and it's like Scotty beamed the engine out of the car in mid-crank.

Nothing. No dash readout, no nav system booting up, no interior lights. Spooky. I give it about 5 minutes and try again. Won't even crank and stuff is flickering and acting goofy. Perfect, I'm thinking, breaks down right when the weekend starts, how am I going to get it running to get back to work on Monday?

I contemplated towing it to a garage or calling one of those hideously expensive, We'll come to your place car repair guys. Problem is with these new cars, so over-engineered, it's difficult for us shade tree mechanic types to do much work on them. But I give it a go.

Pull all the little fuses out, check 'em, clean the contacts and put them back in. Nothing. By the time I went to bed, even the remote locking system wouldn't work. I decided it might be the battery. So this morning I got up and pulled it out.

And walked to the auto parts store. Yeah, carrying a battery. You know what? Those things are freakin' heavy. And I've got partial nerve damage in my right hand, so it's hard to hang onto stuff.

Long story short, too late, it turns out that the battery is dead. So here's my thing -- why wasn't there a warning in all that hi-tech readout stuff on my dash?

I mean, it tells me if my washer fluid is low for f*ck's sake! And it can't mention that the battery isn't holding a charge? The car is only 5 years old, that's the last thing, as you can see, that I thought a problem like this would be. And this is why I like full instrumentation. Give me dash full of gauges, I like that. Oil pressure, oil temp, water temp, ammeter, voltmeter, etc. Let me make my decisions on what's going on by evaluating the info.

Guess I'm sort of old fashioned. I'm just not a fan of the car driving itself. *sigh* Sucks getting old.

Lucy Collett in garter belt and stockings = saleswoman extraordinaire

See if you can spot the subtle product placement in the image below:

Taylor Swift in concert = ass not included

Seriously honey, maybe a cheeseburger...milkshake...something...every once in a while?

Florida legislature shows some spine

The Florida Legislature shot down [no pun intended] an attempt to force a special session to repeal the Stand your Ground law. A three-fifths yes vote in the legislature is required to bring a special session, but there is already over half of the 160 member body that have voted against the measure, dooming it to a quick and deserved defeat.

The entire thing was brought about by 33 legislators who were cowed or simply went along with the grievance mongers who have whined about the Zimmerman verdict since it was announced. This despite the fact that this was never a "stand your ground" case.

It is important to note that the people who are complaining about the Zimmerman verdict are simply upset that Zimmerman didn't go to jail for defending himself against his black attacker and they want redress in any way they can get it. And the anti Second Amendment forces in this country will leap at any chance to find a way to end private ownership of firearms. To wit -- sure you can own a gun, but if you use it to defend yourself, you're going to jail for life, so might as well get rid of it because now you don't have a rational purpose for owning one, right?

Tallahassee is full of protesters right now and the usual race-baiters are working overtime to claim that the law somehow targets young black men. Sadly the truth is that young black men are killing other young black men in obscene numbers, and the "stand your ground" law has nothing to do with it.

Nice to see my elected representatives showing some backbone for a change.

Lady Gaga in V Magazine = relentless

Man, this chick just keeps coming doesn't she?

Sydney Leathers on Hannity last night

So Sydney Leathers was on Hannity last night. The only reason I'm posting on this is that I thought some of her comments and attitudes were quite illuminating. She was surprisingly at ease in the interview, articulate and came across as quite personable. But she's a young democrat and seems locked into the typical prejudices that are inculcated by the overwhelming liberal media and entertainment industry.

At one point she mentioned that she was sure that if she had been bringing down a Republican candidate, conservatives would have been tearing her to pieces. When Hannity replied that he only wanted honest, decent people in the government, she looked at him like he had three heads. She tried to continue the point, picking on a recent embarrassed Republican, and Hannity repeated his point again. She looked totally shocked.

And what else would you expect a 23 year old who gets her news from MSNBC, Comedy Central and the Huffington Post to think? Sadly, she doesn't notice that it is conservatives who quickly move to banish those who act in ways detrimental to the party or the country. Liberals are the ones moving heaven and earth to protect perverts and thieves and liars and criminals and the liberal media that does its best to provide cover for them.

I also had to laugh at one point when Hannity mentioned that Leathers was appearing at a gentlemen's club (HQ Strip Club) later in the evening. She throws up her hands in mock protest, saying it's not like she's stripping or anything, simply hosting an event.

So stripping = bad, but soft-core porn = okay? I've gotta say that I'm missing the distinction here. And Hannity is such a wretched reviewer, why didn't he ask about the videos for Vivid? I would have loved to hear her explain what exactly she was hoping to achieve. Is it simply money? Is she thinking about a career as an actress? She could not possibly be thinking about a career in politics with something like this in her closet. Perhaps she's hoping to be one of the famous-for-being-famous types that left wing shows will bring on to make denigrating comments about conservatives (which apparently she's already done). But other than her sexting and porn career, what would her bonifides be for that?

Interestingly, she didn't seem to have much sympathy for Weiner's wife Huma (sp?). Saying that his wife knew what was going on and yet stayed with him and enabled his behaviour. She also said she wasn't sorry she brought a man she had idolized down because she found him to be a liar and not the man she had built him up in her mind to be.

Most of the rest was typical of a young person -- didn't see herself living past 50, threw out something about not want to be a victim of "slut shaming" for her behaviour, also engaging in a bit of a slam, she suggested Weiner wasn't being satisfied at home -- ouch! And so on. Like I said, it's a shame Hannity is such a poor interviewer, here was an opportunity to see into the mind of a typical young Democrat voter, and he missed it badly.

Update:
Yowzers! I made mention of Ms. Leathers doing soft-core porn above. Well, I just saw a clip of her video at Vivid, and eesh . . . that ain't soft-core! That is full on hard-core porn with the works! I've got no idea what this gal's end game is, but that video isn't going to be a big plus on her resume imho.

Sox up by four in the East

Winning 4-2 in eleven innings over the Blue Jays, the Red Sox increase their division lead to four games over the slumping Rays who lost 5-4 to the Mariners yesterday.

Despite a brutal series against Kansas City, where Boston lost three games out of four, the guys came back strong and showed they are far different than the teams that floudered so badly the last two years. Ryan Dempster had an excellent night on the mound holding the Jays to one run in seven innings. But reliever Junichi Tazawa (who is having a wretched season against Toronto) allowed the game to be tied on a home run to the first batter he faced.

Shane Victorino drove in the winning runs with a two run single in the eleventh to give the guys a good start to a series they need to win.

Down in St. Pete, the Rays aren't being so lucky. After going a gaudy 19-22, and briefly slipping into first place in the division, the Rays are riding a six game losing streak. Starting pitching, with the exception of Price, has been problematic, as has some bad defense and cool bats. In other words -- baseball. I told my co-workers who were orgasmic at the Rays hot series, that it wouldn't last. Nobody's going to win 140 games or whatever, it just isn't going to happen. So expect a few slumps, injuries and bad luck to be on the horizon.

Looks like they're getting all that now. I'm still expecting to see the Rays in the post season, but my biggest bit of serendipity is seeing that Boston may actually win the division after being picked to finish dead last by everyone.

nice

Today in climate hysteria -- facts are inconvenient

Various liberal mouthpieces have begun popping up again, pushing the climate hysteria meme, probably as a way to distract from those pesky "phony scandals" the President's been complaining about.

There was one commentator going on about the rising temperatures -- hottest years in the last century, blah, blah, blah. Chris Hayes mocking California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher for his talk to an enthusiastic Tea Party group. And then former tv critic for the LA Times, Brian Lowry, now writing for Variety, saying there's no such thing as a credible dissenting voice on climate change. Really?!

Hayes did a nice job with the misdirection in his piece, turning Rohrabacher's talk on its ear, claiming that the Tea Party cry for limited government meant they had to disallow any possibility of Global Warming or any other climate crisis.

Problem is, anyone with access to a computer and the knowledge of how to dig for info can debunk anything uninformed commentators like Hayes and Lowry have to say. The graph below is from NOAA. It shows a 15 year period from 1998 to 2013 of continental US temperatures:

I created that with NOAA's interactive database. The horizontal line is a one hundred year baseline average of 52.3 degrees. The blue line is the trending of the last 15 years. Take a look. That ain't goin' up boys! And that is a FACT! And that kind of data is available to anyone who takes the time to find it.

Heard the Prez going on about warming and polar ice melting the other day? Look at these two graphs, also publicly available:

The top graph shows that the ice melt in the arctic is the lowest amount in 34 years. The second graph shows that the arctic "summer" has been one of the coldest and shortest on record. And again, this isn't some conservative "tea-bagger" spouting this stuff, it is simply what the data show.

When people like Hayes (whose degree is in philosophy, not climate science) start going on about rising temperatures, it's important to note that they are cherry-picking data to find places where indeed the temperature is up, but only by hundredths of a degree! Things they ominously claim are true -- not only more storms and wildfires but more intense ones, are simply not borne out by the facts. And those facts are available to the general public via the various agencies that measure these sorts of things.

Commentators like Hayes and the general public believe in climate hysteria because they want to. Not because there is any science or factual data to back them up. And it is their political pig-headedness that is dangerous, not those who simply want to have an honest conversation about the topic.

Lake Bell in bodypaint = why not?

From New York Magazine:

So I guess the Swiss aren't neutral anymore

In case you missed it over the last few weeks, the richest most powerful black entertainer on the planet -- Oprah Winfrey, in the midst of promoting a new movie and with race-baiting over the Zimmerman verdict at a fever pitch, claimed that she too encounters racism on a daily basis.

As if there's anyone in the civilized world that doesn't know who Winfrey is or what she looks like since she self-promotes endlessly, Winfrey claimed that a clerk in a posh Swiss store told her she wouldn't show Winfrey a $38,000 handbag because "...you can't afford it."

After this went viral (Winfrey quietly passed this along ET), adding to the inflamed race tensions being fueled by other celebs from Jay Z to Samuel L. Jackson, and the usual race-baiters like the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, well I guess the clerk decided she'd had enough.

The UK Daily Mail claims the clerk, anonymously, relayed her version of the story and basically called Winfrey a liar -- wondering aloud why such a powerful person would seek to destroy someone so insignificant in such a way.

Kind of hard to say what really happened, but my guess is that the clerk simply didn't feel like fetching a ladder to pull down a freakishly expensive purse unless the customer really seemed interested in buying it (Winfrey was reportedly only in the store for 5 minutes). And Winfrey decided to use this innocuous incident (curiously never mentioning the name of the shop in her story...you'd think she would have) to add fuel to the fire of racial divisiveness being promoted by those who seek to benefit from it.

Called out on her inflammatory story, Winfrey has already backtracked, issuing a tissue thin apology along the lines of "I'm sorry this got blown up."

This isn't the first time that Winfrey's had to back off to public scrutiny. Some years back her book of the month club promoted a supposed true story A Million Little Pieces by James Frey. Book went number one, I think it was based on some street person -- their horrible life, etc. Problem was, it was a complete fabrication. When news got out, Oprah's response was to do a Hillary -- "So what?" But her fans cared. And when the backlash got too great, Winfrey brought Frey onto her show and publicly dressed him down to save face. If that had been me, I would have thrown that crap right back at her, but he meekly took it.

This has been Winfrey's shtick from the beginning. Her weight loss/weight gain episodes timed conveniently to when her ratings were slipping. When women began publicly talking about abuse by their parents . . . yep, Oprah's on tv doing the btw, my father molested me thing, again at a time when her ratings were down. Remember her promise not to get involved in politics? Yeah, that ended in the 2012 election.

She's a savvy media manipulator. There's no denying that. But you'd think she'd use her incredible influence to something better than exacerbating a dangerous situation and demonizing a simple shop clerk.

But then that's my gripe about most of these high profile celebs and entertainers anymore.

Update:
Besides making a weak ass non-apology apology, it looks like Oprah is also changing her story to double down on the racism. Originally claiming she was in full Oprah Winfrey gear -- designer skirt, sandals, etc., now she's going on about how she was all dressed down, looking poor and such. Oh brother. Plus the usual suspects are now lining up to back Oprah against the helpless shop clerk. The gay men who run most of the fawning celeb blogs are all z-snapping and you-go-girl to Oprah as they state how obvious this heinous act of racism was, now also lashing out at the shop's owner who said Winfrey was acting overly sensitive about the whole thing.

Let's see -- preening, relentless self-promoting celebrity goes looking for instance of racism and manages to find it in an innocent question from a clerk at a store. Celeb uses non-event to promote financial venture and maintain street cred in current outrage du jour. Sounds about right.

Update:
Oprah continues to go all in (can't say double down, already used that) on her own racist worldview. Speaking on Anderson Cooper's show (still promoting her movie), Winfrey basically says that if you are white, then you are racist: "...a lot of people think if they think they’re not using the n-word themselves, they physically aren’t using the n-word themselves, and do not harbor ill will towards black people that it’s not racist."

Ok, I don't know about you, but if someone isn't verbally using derogatory epithets toward another person of different race, and isn't harboring any sort of ill-will towards them . . . that's pretty much saying they aren't a racist. But to Winfrey, if you're not black, then you're a racist. Which sort of explains the whole purse incident, doesn't it?

Austin Dillon to drive the #14 at Michigan this weekend

Nationwide points leader Austin Dillon is the next driver to sub for injured Tony Stewart, agreeing to a deal to drive the #14 at Michigan Int'l Raceway this weekend.

Dillon has a nice pedigree in Nationwide and was a truck series champion as well. I find this sort of interesting because Kevin Harvick, who currently drives for Richard Childress Racing, and is going to Stewart's team next year, is being happily released by RCR to make room for Dillon and another kid named Austin in Nationwide, both of whom are related to Richard Childress.

Such synchronicity

Still no word on a permanent replacement for Stewart, who I cannot believe will drive again this year. Not that I'm expecting a quick decision here, but I'm surprised there hasn't been more chatter about it.

Sunday comics lolz

*click image for easier to read full size*

Visit the Baby Blues website for more.

Stewart tags Papis to drive his car at the Glen today

With his leg broken and probably out for the rest of this season, Tony Stewart has nabbed Max Papis to drive his car at Watkins Glen today. Who Tony puts in his car for the balance of the season is still up for grabs I think. My choice would be Elliot Sadler, but I'm not sure he could be pried out of his Nationwide team.

There's been a lot of criticism of Stewart since the wreck, coming from drivers like Kurt Busch (not known for making great decisions himself) and Carl Edwards (still smarting from Stewart running over him to win the Championship two years ago). Today in the Tampa Bay Times, local sports tool Tom Jones added his two cents.

Jones' bitch made it sound like Stewart was on some self-aggrandizement trip, racing in "...piddly little races against drivers who aren't nearly as talented as the ones he faces on weekends." That stunning indictment from a guy who thought the cars in NASCAR were air conditioned. Talk about speaking from ignorance.

Stewart is a throw-back racer -- he just wants to be behind the wheel all the time. He carries that pot belly and double chin with a sly smirk. Tony doesn't care that he won't be on the cover of Men's Fitness in bike shorts and no shirt like teefs Edwards -- he's here to race and have fun and win. Tony loves the small track stuff and despite NASCAR's "Hometracks" initiative, I'd wager that Stewart drives more eyes and needed money to small tracks than anyone else in the sport.

An uninformed writer like Jones wouldn't know this, but back in the day, A.J. Foyt used to drive sprint cars the day before Indy each year. He said it loosened him up and got him ready to go for the big race. Not surprisingly, it is Foyt's old number 14 on Stewart's car in NASCAR, and Foyt happily allowed his kindred spirit to bring the number out of retirement.

In fact, Foyt was one of the first to back Stewart in the early backlash after the accident:
"He ain't no prima donna and life is short, and we don't know how we are going to die or what's going to happen," Foyt told the Los Angeles Times. "I just hate to see anybody badmouth Tony for anything he's doing."

Finally, others have become more vocal in support of Stewart. Teammates Danica Patrick and Ryan Newman both defended Tony. As well as Jimmie Johnson, Dale Jr., and Jeff Gordon.

These guys are in one of the most dangerous sports on the planet. You can't just bubble-wrap them six days a week, then turn them loose for Sunday. Like Newman said, Tony's plane could crash on the way to a race just as easily. And as Danica pointed out, this might bring more attention to safety issues in sprint car, which would be a good thing for everyone.

Bottom line is the guy is living his life his way . . . we should all be so lucky.

Red Sox get a much needed win

Boston finally scraped together a win against KC 5-3. Felix Doubront didn't deliver as he has in the past bunch of games, going only four innings, but Brandon Workman got the team out of a jam and was credited with the win. Don't really care how they do it, just as long as they're successful, you know?

They brought Will Middlebrooks back up to play third. He drove in a couple of runs with a soft liner to right field that barely fell fair. Not exactly the sort of awe-inspiring power I was hoping to see when he came back, but perhaps in time.

Lackey's on the mound for the final game of the series. Can't keep this rotation straight. Either Farrell's mixing and matching like a mad scientist, or it's the concussion again :-)

With the Rays being shut out by the Dodgers, the Sox have a three game lead in the East. Nice cushion. Hope they can hold on to it.

Think I'll pass on Lovelace

So the (is it considered a biopic?) movie about Linda Lovelace and her time in the porn industry is out now. I remember when they were first talking about this movie, adapted from Lovelace's tell-all or whatever, and I remember wondering why they were making the movie in the first place.

The word going around was that it would portray the brutal demeaning stuff that Lovelace had to endure during her time in the industry, including some pretty wretched treatment at the hands of her boyfriend. And they were talking like the movie would not hold back in putting that stuff on screen.

Lindsay Lohan was trying desperately to get this role (and Malin Akerman as well, or perhaps that was a competing adaptation) and at the time I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to go through all that stuff in a movie. But the part went to uber cutie Amanda Seyfried, which saddened me even more.

The other thing that gets me is why would anyone want to watch this in the first place? The story is such a downer, maybe it's just me, but I don't want to go to a movie to be depressed. There's the voyeur aspect of course, which I'm sure will drive some fans, mostly men, who want to see Seyfried naked:

But I'm just not getting it. Same goes for Lohan, who got her wish to play a sort of battered and abused woman in a highly sexual atmosphere in The Canyons. I did a post years ago about how it always amazes me that these actresses always look to play hookers or strippers when they want to show range or maturity in their careers. Is that Seyfried's thinking here? I haven't looked, but she seems to me to have a pretty impressive resume to date. She doesn't need this role. I can see Lindsay thinking she might, to resurrect her own flagging career, but either Amanda or Malin . . . not seein' it.

And like I said, not seein' this movie either.

Oof, Sox lose two straight to the Royals

One night after getting shut out by the crafty Bruce Chen, the Sox lost again to the red hot Royals 9-6.

New addition Jake Peavy carried a 6-3 lead into the bottom of the sixth and then he and the bullpen melted down allowing KC to hang six runs on them for the win. Boys got a taste of their own comeback medicine, I guess.

With the Rays losing in similar fashion ('pen meltdown), Boston still has a two game lead in the division. Felix Doubront is on the mound tonight (I think, might be a day game), and hopefully he can turn in another stellar performance. Should the guys win today, my thinking is that they start Workman in place of Ryan Dempster, who's been struggling of late. A series split would be good here. Only taking 1 of 3 or a sweep could allow the Rays to overtake first place again.

Fingers crossed

Surprised it took this long

So this appeared recently in the Florida Civil Rights Hall of Fame:

Yes, it's a mural of a guy who looks an awful lot like George Zimmerman, shooting someone in a hoodie with the image of Martin Luther King hovering nearby. The face of the hoodie victim is actually a mirror, so you can see yourself as a victim, or something.

Since in nine cases out of ten, young black men are shot by other young black men, shouldn't the shooter here be, you know, another guy in a hoodie?

Or perhaps the shooter should be covered in blood, with a broken nose and be lying on his back while the mirror-faced hoodie wearer delivers a ground-and-pound beating? You know, like what was actually happening?

And what the f*ck does Martin Luther King have to do with a drug-dealing, trouble-making, thug-in-training dude in a hoodie anyway?

Just wondering.

And btw, before you think I'm jumping to conclusions here about the artist's intentions, I believe the mural is titled "We are all Trayvon Martin" or something to that effect.

Life imitating art?

So I was watching Robocop 2 tonight, and I was kind of struck by the fact that either life sort of imitates art, or we just always have the same sorts of things going on and we don't realize it.

Made in 1990, the movie features a story and screenplay by Frank Miller, the wonderful writer behind 300, The Dark Night Returns, Sin City, and some of the best storylines in comics like Daredevil and The Punisher.

You've got a bankrupt Detroit in the movie -- now, yeah...same thing. People making the case that legalized drugs will reduce crime and put more people to work making the drugs -- see marijuana, medical. Civil servants (cops in the movie) on strike for wages and benefits -- pretty much any state with a Republican governor trying to make budget. And so on.

The overly PC people in the movie cramming Robocop's head full of touchy-feely directives -- address environmental concerns, stop shooting "that big gun of his" be a better role model, get a consensus before you act, etc. Doesn't that sound like every pantiwaist whiny liberal you hear on tv today?

And I love the commercial for the blue stuff to slather on to spend some time by the pool because of the hole in the ozone. Of course, like all climite hysteria, that was a load of crap too. But funny to look back and see something about it in a movie. It's like picking up a magazine from the 70s and seeing one of those articles about how half of North America would be covered in ice by 1985 because of global cooling. Oops . . .

One other thing I liked was the deliciously evil Dr. Faxx, played by underrated beauty Belinda Bauer. I think she writes crime novels or something now, but here's a shot of her on the cover of Esquire circa 1977 looking pretty hot in those halcyon days of no Photoshop:

Movie review -- Walled In

This is a little straight-to-video foreign flick that caught my eye a while back. I think it's an underrated little movie, so I figured I would give it a little write up in my underrated movie reviews. heh

Before the title credits roll, we get a disturbing opening -- a young girl, eight-ish, is in a small, enclosed space. She awakens to her predicament and begins crying for her mother and father. Soon concrete begins pouring in at her feet. The level rises slowly as she screams, until just her face is showing -- then the screen goes black.

rugged

We're then introduced to Sam Walzcak, played by Mischa Barton. She's the stereotyped "first in our family" to graduate from college and she's getting a birthday party. We're informed that the Walzcak's "blow sh*t up" which is to say, they are in the demolition business. And as a birthday present, Sam is being given the opportunity to engineer a demolition on her own. As a bonus, Sam is also given two tickets to a tour of the architectural wonders of Europe to share with the professor she's been sleeping with while in college.

Off she goes to the building, out in the middle of some nowhere marsh-land town called Grand Ridge. The building was built by famed architect Malestrazza who has a reputation for putting up indestructible buildings that remain standing after all manner of natural disasters.

It's an odd looking structure, I'm sure created by CGI, but they did their job making it sort of creepy looking. The interior is dark and stark. The entry foyer has columns with an odd silvery-gold detail on the lower third. Plus the lights go out every six minutes in the hallways -- you know that's going to cause problems at some point. Basically, the building is another character in the movie, and a well done one at that.

Sam meets two of the building four occupants right away. The caretaker -- Mary, played by Deborah Kara Unger and her son Jimmy, played by Cameron Bright. Both Unger and Bright have their creepiness dialed up to eleven for the movie, and I doubt the casting could have been any better.

As Sam begins her work, measuring the building for demolition, she begins to find that things are not quite right there. The interior measurements don't match the plans. Plus Sam is hearing things in the walls and having scary dreams.

Not only that, the building itself has a sordid history -- it's home to the infamous "Walled in murders" some 15 years before. It turns out that during construction, 16 people were murdered and sealed up in the walls of the building, including Malestrazza himself. And Jimmie's father as well.

Also causing problems is the fact that 25 year old Sam is mildly flirtatious with 15 year old Jimmy in the way older girls often are with younger boys they find non-threatening. Jimmy plays Sam adroitly, alternating scary anecdotes and cruel pranks with kindly help and advices. His statement at one point "I tell stories, I don't lie" should have been a warning to Sam, who doesn't see Jimmie for what he may be. But it is obvious he is infatuated with her . . . perhaps too much so.

When Sam's boyfriend, the professor, shows up, things go quickly downhill. On the verge of abandoning her job because of all the bizarre and frightening occurrences, Sam is coerced into staying by Jimmie who gives her Malestrazza's notebook. It contains the actual plans to the building which show a hidden interior and his thoughts on the primitive belief that buildings can be strengthened by embedding the spiritual energy of the living within them.

Desperate to find that hidden interior, Sam becomes trapped in the building. She awakens bloodied, nude and with a sprained ankle. And there's someone else in the nearly pitch black octagonal room with her. Who is he? And does he mean to harm her?

Sam's trapped, her boyfriend is dead and the demolition crew is coming. I won't spoil it for you, but the movie plays out pretty well from there on out. Several things caught me by surprise, which I like. And the ending didn't seem contrived at all. Promoted as a horror flick, it's really a psychological thriller and a moody, dark one at that.

Barton does a good job with the role. She manages the varying emotions quite believably. Made in 2007, Mischa, whose body weight has wildly fluctuated through the years, was beginning to fill out a bit. So she's delightfully muffin-topping her jeans in this, which I like. They also went light on the make-up. Mischa's actually quite pretty and I think it was a good look for her. Plus I noticed a slight y-shaped scar under her left eye that I've never noticed before. Real? If so, it was a nice touch to leave it in.

No nudity, some pg-13 sex, and the blood isn't overwhelming. As I said -- I think it is an underrated movie and worth watching if you get the chance. Don't know if you should spend money to see it, but definitely, if it comes around on cable again, give it a look -- recommended.

---

Did you find this review helpful? Check out my other reviews for my thoughts on the flicks and the occasional gallery of hotness that accompanies them:

---

And speaking of occasional galleries of hotness, here's some sexy images of Mischa Barton to finish things off nicely:

Helen Hunt in a one-piece = respectable

Helen Hunt went out paddleboarding or surfing, not sure which recently and did a good job rockin' the one piece swimsuit. Can't tell if it's the harsh outdoor light or what, but her face looks a little botox-y, which is a shame. She should take her cue from the smokin' hot Helen Mirren and let herself age naturally.

No matter . . . still works for me :-)

Hackers are entrepreneurs too, you know

I always like to think of myself as one of the earliest hackers. Back in 1975, my buddies and I in high school developed a program to steal the passwords of other high schools that enabled them to log onto the server at the local science center.

Back in those days, it was all chunka-chunka Telex paper print outs, programs stored on punch tape, no crt's, and the servers ran on the high-speed spinning tape drives you see in old movies. Our program had to be manually loaded into each high school's computer as it was online. Labor intensive, but it worked.

Of course, programming and the internet have raced past me at light speed now. I'm barely able to do basic html scripting. But others, well . . .

In a Wall Street Journal article recently, Jennifer Valentino-Devries and Danny Yadron bring to light some pretty alarming developments in hacking technology and exactly who is using them.

The FBI not only employs hackers, but outsources to private companies creating hacking software to gain the upper hand in the surveillance of suspects who've gone off the grid, so to speak. They currently have software that can remotely activate the microphones on Android powered cell phones so that they can record conversations. Apparently they can also do the same to certain laptops. So that bit in the second Batman movie wasn't exactly fantasy after all.

Eesh!

One such private supplier of this software, the UK based Gamma International supplies what they call "0 day exploits" -- spyware that exploits holes in software the providers don't know about yet, such as Internet Explorer.

Google, the creator of Android, and Microsoft obviously won't comment on the possible vulnerability of their software. But you don't have to be a genius to realize that the more complex the software, the easier it is to find a chink in the armor that hopefully protects it. Apple's proprietary software protected it initially, but even they are now vulnerable as they expand their compatibility to other systems.

All this comes as a disturbing addendum to the data mining by the NSA. Like most, I'm torn where to come down on that business. We want to be able to track terrorists and criminals, but we also want our privacy protected. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be a way to do both. As we've seen with the current scandals in Washington, trusting government to do the right thing is kinda hard these days. We have a President using supposedly independent agencies like the IRS to target his political enemies and a supposedly independent press giving him cover for it. How can we trust these people to do the right thing with our private information?

It has been pointed out frequently that the very freedoms that make this the greatest country on Earth, also make us vulnerable to those with bad intentions toward us. We shouldn't have to worry about those we charge with protecting us as well.

No Michelle, I haven't forgotten

The US Army is finally conducting the trial of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan after years of waiting. Michelle Malkin has an excellent article at her website detailing many of the forgotten facts about this act of terrorism. I won't bother to excerpt it here, you should go and read it and the accompanying articles for yourself.

As I said in the title to this post, I haven't forgotten about this tragedy . . . because my son was based at Ft. Hood when it happened. It was the most frightening moment of my life. Sitting at home, seeing the news flash on television and realizing my only child was in the midst of a terrorist attack.

I managed to get him via text message, and since the base was in a lock-down condition, I relayed what they were saying on the news to him so that he could pass that on to his comrades. Finally getting through on phone . . . hearing the incredulity in his voice as he relayed the news to others that it was a Major doing the killing . . . can't ever forget that.

But I have also not forgotten the coward-in-chief, our Islamic terrorist appeasing President calling this an incident of "workplace violence". Perhaps one of the most shameful moments of any President in my lifetime.

In the days subsequent to the attack at Ft. Hood, I kept in closer contact with my son than usual. I passed along a news report that said that Hasan, who was still in the hospital recovering from the bullet wounds he suffered in his capture, was too weak to stand trial. My son suggested they simply strap him onto his gurney and stand him before a firing squad.

My thoughts exactly! Send this f*cker to his 72 virgins and be done with him!

You've got to be kidding me!

So I pop over to the Red Sox site to see how the guys are doing in their second game against the last place Astros after being shut out in the first game, and they're getting clobbered again. Might have been something like 7-2 in the fourth inning, but I'm not sure.

They decided to try Steven Wright, the knuckleballer they brought up from the minors who's done well out of the pen, as a starter. Well, kid's no Tim Wakefield as he barely lasted an inning, getting shelled for three quick runs. And the apparent rout was on.

I say apparent, because I just checked back and the score is now 15-9 Red Sox in the top of the 7th! WTF?! I cannot wait to see the box score for this game, 'cause someone got lit up here! Wow!

My initial idea for this post was to wonder why they were starting this kid Wright, when they've got an up-and-coming guy in Brandon Workman who looks to be a solid starter. But I guess that's sort of a moot point now.

With the Rays lurking only a half game back, I don't think this is the time for Farrell to be experimenting with starting pitchers. Kind of need to win games now, you know?

Update:
So checking the wrap up, I'm guessing Farrell pulled Wright after Lavarnway had four passed balls in the first inning. It looked like the knuckleball was all over the place and not only not going for strikes it was uncatchable. The guys had two five run innings to pull ahead for the win. Interestingly, Brandon Workman got the win, coming in to pitch in the second inning, even though he gave up six runs in his four innings of work. Guys got lucky in this one. Take it and move on.

---

And because I feel sort of bad for assaulting my visitors with the post right below this one, here's some Ella hotness to try and make amends:

Why am I not surprised by this?

Sydney Leathers, the gal on the other end of self-destructive mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner's sexting scandal, has turned up at Vivid doing, at least for the moment, nude videos:

No word yet on whether she'll be doing two-somes with Farrah Abraham anytime soon. [shudders]

I was going to make a crack about how this dude can really pick 'em, but he's quite the piece of work himself. Good thing his wife is Hillary-like in that she's so focused on climbing that ladder, she doesn't care what her douchebag husband does.

sheesh!

Update:
Well, folks are still linking to this post, I guess there's never a lack of interest in famewhoring young ladies who willingly jump right into porn to maximize their 15 minutes of celebrity. So here's some more images of the toothy Ms. Leathers for you to . . . enjoy?
btw -- if you're that interested, the unedited images come up when you click on the sanitized versions showing on the page.

Update 2:
Oh gracious! On Hannity tonight, Ms. Leathers actually said she didn't think it was fair for people to engage in slut shaming her. Well, I can assure you that I have no intention of doing that here. If Sydney Leathers wants to capitalize on her 15 minutes of celebrity by doing porn and hosting events at gentlemen's clubs and whatever . . . I'm saying go for it.