John Wayne Wears Pink

"Real men ... avoid purple and pink like the plague."
"John Wayne once said, 'I’m the stuff men are made of.'  America needs more John Waynes."
-JOTUS

So ... this is awkward, to say the least. I just obliterated JOTUS' argument by finding a picture of John Wayne wearing pink. It wasn't that hard either. A simple Google search of the supposedly masculine actor and the picture was the fourth result. I didn't even have to click on the images section, it came up in the links. So I really don't have to keep countering JOTUS' argument, but I will.



I don't know what America JOTUS is living in, but I don't see a shortage of "American Men". Surely some men do wear V-necks and skinny jeans, but don't blame the feminists. Statistics show that some men are less masculine than others, based on the distribution of hormones. JOTUS is confusing hypermasculinity for masculinity, so normal masculinity seems feminine. Her frame of reference is skewed. I challenge her to observe a sample of 50 men and find how many men are an Adam Lambert on the masculinity scale and how many men are a John Wayne on the scale; the number of men on the extreme sides of the scale should be the same. Its called the bell curve.

Naturally, JOTUS finds a way to scapegoat a group she disagrees with for no reason, the feminists. Without them she couldn't vote for her wing-nut teabaggers. Her examples of suppressing masculinity are weak at best. School PE classes can have very competitive games, and I don't really understand JOTUS' other examples. I feel like she didn't even give examples. You can't just dictate the end result without demonstrating the process that turned men into whatever you think they are turning into.

And it would be great if JOTUS read her sources. After performing a simple search on the Eagle Forum, I found this, an explanation for the disparity between male and female ratios in college. JOTUS Should Have Read This.

Maybe Hollywood is projecting a societal trend towards individualism for females. Maybe females are demonstrating their dislike for guys. Maybe Snooki was right when she gave us insight into why the lesbian rate is going up. Or maybe they're just movies. I could find two movies about anything and use it as evidence for nothing.

And while it is disturbing that 40% of all babies born in the U.S. were born to unwed mothers, that does not mean that the babies' fathers are not there. Just because the parents are not married, it does not mean they are separated.

And as far as those skinny jeans go, Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Ramones, and Guns N' Roses all donned them at some time.

Black Canadians You Should Know

While the Tea Party continues to be racist, and no it is not another liberal conspiracy, I present you three Black Canadians you should know.

Grant Fuhr. The Hall of Famer NHL goaltender was among the best of his era. His accomplishments include five Stanley Cup championships with the Edmonton Oilers, and six All-Star game appearances. He is only one half black, but that is still blacker than most Canadians. And yes, that's Wayne Gretzky pictured alongside him.

Malcolm Gladwell. Ever since his first book The Tipping Point was released in 2000, Gladwell has been stunning audiences with his reporting on subjects ranging from psychology to success. He currently writes for the New Yorker, and Time recognized him on their 100 most influential people in 2005. The University of Waterloo (shoutout to Lucas Woj.) presented him with an honourary degree in 2007. Gladwell is half Jamaican, which means he is pretty black for North American standards.

Drake. The hip-hop entertainer has enjoyed recent success with his release of So Far Gone and Thank Me Later. Born in Toronto to a black father and a white Jewish mother, Drake has been criticized for being out of touch with hip-hop because he is a) Canadian and b) half white. But let's be reasonable here, those are things he cannot control and the only mistake he ever made was associating himself with Lil Wayne.

The Only Time the World Cup Seemed Pure ... Was When Americans Won

The World Cup recently finished with a less than exciting 1-0 match that left Spain on top. Despite the impressive ratings in the United States, Jane Gilvary believes soccer is a sport that should remain to be outside our borders. "Call me xenophobic," she says,  "but I’m tired of hearing that soccer is the most popular sport in the world and that the U.S. needs to adopt it." Well, soccer is the most popular sport in the world. There is no doubt about it.

As far as people who want the United States to join in, I believe only Americans would enjoy that. Think about it; who would really want the United States to consume their game and spit it out as its own? Nobody, besides Americans that is. Gilvary adds "like the European metric system, Americans will never fully embrace soccer." Now thats an argument worth having. Not only is the metric system European, its Earthean. Everybody uses metric, save the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar. Ask most Americans how many pints are in a quart, and the answers will vary. Even I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. Ask anybody how many millilitres are in a litre and you will get the same answer just about every time, one thousand.

But anyways, back to soccer. When the World Cup was played in America, suddenly the game became "exciting, pure, and refreshing". She is implying that soccer interest sprung up Stateside for only that reason, and that the game changed just for this one tournament. Actually, its far more likely that interest was because the tournament was played in America, and the games seemed better because they ended with favorable results. Isn't a Super Bowl held in Phoenix far more exciting for Arizonians than other Super Bowls, even if the Cardinals are not playing? And why would she expect the Union to sell out games at the Linc when it took an international tournament to do so in the past?

"The girls of summer played soccer as it should be played, with no dramatic 'diving' to gain sympathy from the referees—they played to win.  Their technical play was flawless and their passion was exhilarating." Ironic that an American who claims to be no fan of soccer notes how purely the game was played when the Americans win.

Let me mention how two of the twenty members were moms at the time of the tournament. Sixteen would have children after or no children at all. Information on the remaining two was not available. Gilvary really stretches the meaning of "Soccer Moms" to mean "Almost none of them had kids, but they were women and they did play soccer."

Nothing is Timeless

Wilder Publications recently added a disclaimer to its publication of the United States Constitution. It reads "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.  Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relationships have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.” Pretty harmless, eh?

Apparently not so. This seemingly harmless statement has created outrage among Conservatives. They claim the Constitution is timeless and flawless. But it is far from that. Times change, people change, values change. The American people need to ask themselves, is the Constitution appropriate for the freedoms desired today? Does "We the People" mean literally "We the People", or should it be taken in its original context as white men? Does the right to bear arms mean I can have a missile launcher in my backyard? While a question like that may seem silly, arms are arms, whether pistols or high-tech missiles. To quote Glenn Beck, "I'm just asking questions." Not to mention that Wilder Publications places this disclaimer on all works it publishes.

If Progressivism, a movement to reform the ills of society, is cancer, then what is Conservatism? It certainly can't be less harmful than cancer. After all, it is trying to hinder improvement. Conservatism is nothing short of a degenerative disease, peeling away at the opportunities for America to do what she does best: improve. It won't be long until India and China surpass the United States as the leading nations of the world if Conservatives continue to limit her.

I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. It ensures me my liberties and my freedoms. But that doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers who created this document could foreshadow the modern world. This is why amendments are necessary. If you are going to challenge the validity of statements questioning the Constitution, you might as well ask why any amendments to the Constitution were necessary.

And quoting Lincoln as a preserver of the Constitution is quite ironic. He himself challenged the Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. But I guess its alright to omit a fact like that if it compromises your entire argument.

Habeas Corpus fact provided by M. Patrick Morgioni.

Let Him Be

Recently Paul McCartney visited the White House to accept an award and play for the First Family. As usual, Conservatives found a way to spin that into complaints about taxes and big government. Jane Gilvary of JOTUS seemed to have a problem with McCartney's joke about former president George W. Bush's intelligence and how Obama responded.

Even if McCartney did offend the current President, Obama acted the only way he could. It is not his job to call out his guest of honour, especially in such an occasion. Did you honestly expect the President to embarrass Sir Paul McCartney? There is no way to rectify such a situation, so the President was forced to accept the artist's comments.

Also, Gilvary thinks that Obama admires McCartney because neither of them were born in the United States. That logic is severely flawed in two ways: Obama was born in the United States, and foreigners don't necessarily sympathize. Especially coming from a grown adult, claiming that Obama was born outside the United States is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Oh by the way, the Tea Party also told me that McCartney was born in Kenya. Second, strangers don't connect based on what they are not, they connect through common trait.

Obama admires McCartney because he was a prominent member of the most famous band in history. End of story. And as far as the "Taxman" goes, taxes have not gone up for 95% of families under Obama.

Gilvary also tries to provide a British equivalent, which is as flawed as her argument. If Michael Jackson were to be knighted by Queen Elizabeth, he would need a time machine to travel to the late 1500's. I think you mean Queen Elizabeth II. Good thing the Bulletin didn't publish this one.

Gilvary cites Bush's education as a strong point. The fact is, Bush gained admission into Harvard and Yale not because of his brilliance, but because his family attended there. The Universities wanted his family's money. There is no shortage of "Bushisms" that expose why society would view him as stupid. So when McCartney makes a joke about his intelligence, don't get defensive claiming how smart he is. An MBA from Harvard means nothing if he didn't earn it, like a non-celebrity student would. Besides, he is fortunate enough getting to serve as President after not being elected.

Even more egregious than Sir McCartney getting the prestigious Gershwin Prize because of illicit drug use is having George Bush elected to the prestigious President of the United States position after illicit drug use. Oh wait ... he didn't actually win.

Canadiens and Canadians

As the NHL Playoffs continue, Flyers fans all throughout Philadelphia have been getting hyped. After barely making the playoffs, the Broad Street Bullies bulldozed the New Jersey Devils and scraped by the Boston Bruins. Many hockey fans, like myself, were stunned when they learned how far the Flyers have advanced.

But their opponent has a more compelling story. On the very last day of the regular season, the Montreal Canadiens clinched their playoff spot. The Habs proceeded to upset the favorites in game 7's; they beat both the Washington Capitals and Pittsburgh Penguins who were expected to go far in the playoffs. And that is how we find ourselves with two great hockey cities playing for a berth in the Stanley Cup Finals.

After the Flyers readily beat the Canadiens in games one and two, many Flyers fans made some outrageous claims. Things such as "Canadians suck at hockey" emerged. There are two huge fallacies with this claim:
a. You might mean the Canadiens, and  b. Canadians are amazing at hockey. Spelling Canadiens that way is a tribute to the French heritage in Quebec. Next time you want to distinguish the hockey team from the people as a whole, use the French spelling.

And if you do mean that Canadians suck at hockey, that is probably the dumbest thing you have ever said. Canadians invented, played, and perfected hockey. 52% of NHL players are Canadian. Most of the Flyers stars such as Gagne, Briere, Carter, and Leighton are Canadian.

So you can say the Canadiens suck at hockey all you want, they are just a hockey team. But it would be foolish to say Canadians suck at hockey, and we have quite a few gold medals to back that up.

We the People

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble to the United States Constitution

The Constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land. Sometimes I wonder, is the America today the same as the Founding Fathers pictured it to be. Sure they could never have predicted the technologies of today, but would they have wanted this country to be ruled by the rich, the corporations, and mainly by one religious denomination?

It greatly upsets me when people claim the Constitution to be something it is not. It is not a protector of capitalism or free enterprise. Also, in no place does it prevent socialism. So when Jane Gilvary claims President Obama has " trampled and spat upon our Constitution" after socializing medicine, what is she trying to say?

Well, this only supports the hypocrisy Gilvary lives by. Claiming socialized medicine is against the Constitution is not an opinion or interpretation of the document, it completely contradicts what the Constitution states. When the Founding Fathers included "promote the general welfare" of the Union, I don't think they meant "promote the general welfare for only the middle and upper classes". They meant We the people, all of us, every single one of us. In fact, if any of them were alive today, they might denounce even Obama's plan. Obama's plan is barely socialistic, and a one plan system would be a better way to promote the general welfare.

Also, she is a close follower of Jesus and his teachings. Bible Quote Time:
"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." - Mark 10:21
Jesus is obviously preached socialism and was anti-capitalist. So when you declare Obama is unjustly spreading the wealth, then go to Church and praise Jesus, you are engaging in some serious hypocrisy.

Gilvary also finds it important that Obama throws out first pitches in baseball like a little girl. I don't know how this makes him a bad president, but she seems to laud George W. Bush for his pitches. Too bad he was one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Also, Obama can ball. Like LeCarKobe Durant.

Lastly, Gilvary satirizes Joe Biden for claiming Health Care Reform is "a big fucking deal". I could make fun of Sarah Palin right here, but that would be too easy.