Once upon a time, I mused on my blog about the quiet force of nature known as The Nice Guy™. You doubtless know one; the guy who’s spoken of highly by all who know him yet remains strangely solo in a duet world. Why is that, one wonders. Could it be that far too many women are addicted to their built-in bastard radar to give The Nice Guy™ a shot? Naah. Couldn’t be that. Thankfully, one Rosemary Ribner from the immortal website Grumpy Sloth (no, I’d never heard of it before either) has come along to clear up all possible misconceptions regarding this puzzlement.

It’s all The Nice Guy™’s fault.

Ms. Ribner starts her philippic with a revelation so overwhelmingly astonishing in its utter obviousness it boggles the mind anyone would bother writing it down: guys who play-act at being The Nice Guy™ in order to try and attract women, then vociferously complain at remaining dateless, aren’t actually A Nice Guy™. What, doing a bottom drawer beta male move isn’t genuine niceness? Gee. Who knew. Maybe next Ms. Ribner will tell us water is quite often wet.

From this Captain Obvious moment, Ms. Ribner launches into other reasons why, in her estimation, The Nice Guy™ is highly suspect to spending Saturday nights grocery shopping in lieu of leavin’ ‘em stacked like cordwood on the killing floor. They don’t try hard enough, this manifested by their taking “no I don’t want to go out with you” as meaning … brace yourself … no, I don’t want to go out with you. They keep reaching out of their lane and out of their league (more on this in a bit). They’re not sufficiently imbued with masculinity, this flying in the face of how toxic masculinity is the sin above all sins for feminists but whatever. They’re too agreeable. They’re boring; apparently women holding the mindset set forth in this article prefer the thrill of being treated like toilet paper. And, they claim to be feminists, this coming as news to Nice Guys™ who to a one would rather play solitaire for fun with a deck of fifty-one than hassle attempting to date any woman identifying herself with screeching, strident, manbashing feminism. This includes any woman signing off on the points in Ms. Ribner’s article as gospel truth.

Returning to the aforementioned assertion that Nice Guys™ spend too much time trying to date over their head — because, after all, there isn’t a single single woman out there not brushing off great guys because she’s holding out for Justin Timberlake or reasonable celebrity equivalent thereof — it is more than interesting to note women seizing upon this as Holy Writ. Why can’t The Nice Guy™ go ask out that Nice Girl™ over there? She’s much more his type than me. Translation: “I deserve so much better than that boring bozo, what with his manners and consideration and such. Besides, my built-in bastard radar is pinging. Make me cry, big boy!” It could be noted how utterly condescending this is to all women sloughed off as being second tier, but there isn’t a woman alive who’d do that to another woman, now is there …

Behind Ms. Ribner’s thinly veneered manbashing exercise lies the unspoken yet plainly stated belief that women who date assholes have only The Nice Guy™ to blame. Not themselves, oh no never ever ever. If The Nice Guy™ would have just filled in on the checkboxes on my must have list, they would have saved me from myself! Sorry, ladies who think this way. There’s only one Guy capable of saving you from your own shallow, narcissistic mindset. And He’s not available for dating. You date a known bastard, it is entirely on you. Own it.

PS: Laying sarcasm aside, I know several truly wonderful women who wound up dating, and sometimes marrying, bastards not through any fault of their own. In these cases, every single time the bastard managed to keep his true nature — usually mental issues manifested by abuse on one or more levels — sufficiently hidden until it was too late for an easy exit. The woman is not at fault in these scenarios, and often emerges from these living nightmares far more appreciative of what nice guys have to offer. They deserve a nice guy. Prayerfully, they will find one.

PPS: God loves bastards too and offers them the way out from their bastard-ness:

at Saturday’s Women’s March.

I watched, and still cannot figure out why the vagina costumes [sic – the correct name for the particular body part the costumes depict is vulva], and why the p***y hats: If you are so incensed about a man reducing women to her body parts, why are you reducing all women, including Our Lady of Guadalupe, to their body parts?

The Austin marchers interviewed couldn’t even tell Steven Crowder why they marched:

I’m cynical enough to think the Soros-funded marches were originally intended as a celebration of Hillary’s ascent to the throne Presidency, and became a public hissy fit when that didn’t work out.

All the same, the speakers and the attendees abundantly indulged in foul language while unhinged.

As a sideshow, the Washington, D.C., marchers desecrated the Daughters of the American Revolution Memorial (emphasis added),

Ironically, the largest building complex privately built, owned, operated and maintained entirely by women in the world.

After the march, someone posted on Facebook “I am not a “disgrace to women” because I don’t support the women’s march.” Sure as rain, a condescending marcher had to inform us that You Are Not Equal. I’m Sorry, because “You did nothing to earn your rights.”

Setting aside a discussion on unalienable rights, odds are that this person in younger than I. I am pretty sure we have never met. So what does she(?) know about what I have earned, or not, in my long life? The condescension piles on:

“You still make less than a man for doing the same work.”

Then start your own business, or work entirely on commission.

“You still have to justify your behavior when a man forces himself on you.”

Get training on firearms, get your license. Carry.

“You are still objectified”

Then stop wearing pussy hats, vagina [sic] costumes, and using sexual and profane words. Cover your breasts – nobody wants to see them. But back to more condescension,

“Estonia allows parents to take up to three years of leave, fully paid for the first 435 days.”

Move to Estonia.

The article ends with an offer:

“I will walk for you.”

No thank you. I walk for and whenever I please. Which, by the way, this answer is related to my resolutions after watching the shameful displays on Saturday: I’ve resolved to never use foul language, strive to behave with some dignity, and to continue to associate with people of decency and drop any others. Otherwise I would have told them not to let the door hit them on their p***yhats on the way out.

I clearly need to work some more on my resolutions.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz posts on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

By: Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — As Donald Trump begins his first full weeks as President of the United States, I’m going to step back and just watch; I want to see what he does. I’m not the least bit interested in speculation or criticizing him for things he hasn’t done yet. The Women’s March that happened across the country over the weekend happened here in Shreveport, too, with hundreds of people crowded around the courthouse downtown waving Hillary signs and wearing pink caps. Okay. Whatever. I’m a woman – I don’t feel violated or threatened or victimized in any way. Perhaps I’ve missed the point of the protests, and that’s fine. I’ve been busy.

I’ve been on book deadline (which is why my weekly post didn’t appear hear last week) and other aspects of daily life have kept me occupied this week – too much so to make a poster about vaginas and go stand around at the courthouse.  I fully respect the rights of those who felt the need to do so to be able to do that; it’s just not my thing. I’ll protest other things, perhaps. I just missed the point of this one.

At any rate, one woman in the Shreveport march was quoted as saying:

“I think we’re just living in such a politically cantankerous world right now, and this isn’t a protest against one person,” participant JayaMcSharma said. “It’s just sending a clear message to the administration that just took over, this is what we’re about: equality, peace, love and defending people who are marginalized. If you agree with that, fantastic. If you don’t, we’re not going away.”

So…okay…you’re protesting about something you think might happen, but then again might not?

They marched in New Orleans, too:

The women said they were protesting against some of the comments made by Trump during his campaign, saying that wanted their voices to be heard.

That’s at least a little more clear, although I’m still not clear on which rights were lost by Trump’s election.

Another protester in NOLA said:

“We’re willing to come out and show our displeasure and to show that we’re not going to roll over and this administration is not going to be able to get away with anything they want.”

Well, that would be a different approach as the Obama administration certain seemed to be able to get away with anything it wanted.

As a woman, I’m certainly all for standing up for your rights, but I’m thinking how much more could have been done in communities had all these people not been standing in the streets dressed like vaginas and waving Hillary posters.

But, they still have the right to protest so I guess there’s that.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

The Clinton campaign has aimed an ad right at Trump’s underbelly: assorted negative comments made by him about women. Clinton’s kicker: “is this the President we want for our daughters?”

Careful of that glass house you’re living in, Mrs. C.

This from the campaign of a woman who likes to say that women’s rights are human rights. At the same time, she promotes abortion, which effectively makes human rights conditional on whether an individual is “wanted.” My daughters know better. Does hers?

She touts the “Affordable” Care Act every chance she gets, which is not the same thing as supporting health care. Ask the women with high deductibles who are about to hear from their insurance companies how much more they have to pay for health insurance next year. I doubt that I’m the only woman who is avoiding urgent-care medical attention because it’s unaffordable. I haven’t heard Trump applaud that.

She’s determined to keep the “Affordable” Care Act’s HHS/contraceptive mandate in place. Remember that the ACA considers contraception for women to be “preventive” care, which implies that women are broken and need to be fixed. The same mandate is what’s keeping the Little Sisters of the Poor (among others) in court. Prosecuting nuns for exercising their right to choose not to subsidize employees’ contraceptive use? So much for standing by women. I don’t see Trump taking aim at nuns.

Clinton wants to eliminate the Hyde Amendment. The more public funding of abortion, the better, in Hillaryland. Don’t like that? Prepare to pay up and shut up during a Clinton Administration. Conscience rights be damned. Trump takes a different view of Hyde.

And then there’s Clinton’s recent gleeful question about Trump: “what kind of genius loses a billion dollars in a single year?” I guess that’s the shiny object that’s supposed to divert me from a more substantive question: what kind of Secretary of State “loses” tens of thousands of emails and gets away with it? Do we want our daughters governed by a politician who thinks she’s above the law and will not come clean about her actions?

As for remarks about women, it wasn’t Trump who called Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash”  or Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony tune.” In this campaign, Clinton has said that women who have endured sexual assault have the right to be believed. Tell it to Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.

Is this the President we want for our daughters?

It’s a fair question to ask about Trump. It’s an urgent question to ask about Clinton.

I speak to Tami Kiser The Catholic Conference for Moms at the Catholic Marketing Trade Show

The Catholic Conference for moms is in February. Their website is here. their twitter page is here Their facebook page is here.

I’ll never make the mistake of being 70 again

Casey Stengel

Birds gotta play, fish gotta swim and women who are over fifty gotta be replaced by younger hotter women if you are covering football.

Pam Oliver is no longer Fox’s top NFL sideline reporter. And after this coming football season, she will no longer be a sideline reporter at all.

Oliver confirmed the news to Sports Illustrated on Sunday night that she will move to the network’s No. 2 team for her 20th NFL broadcasting season. Erin Andrews has been elevated to the No. 1 sideline spot, joining the team of Joe Buck and Troy Aikman. Oliver’s last season working as a reporter on the NFL will be spent with the No. 2 Fox team of Kevin Burkhardt and John Lynch.

Now I’m not a big football guy and I can’t honestly comment on the skill or knowledge of Pam Oliver when it comes to the NFL but I’m going to make the rash assumption that if she’s been doing it for two decades she’s likely rather knowledgeable about it.  And as I have absolutely no interest in college football (Zip Zero Nada) which has been the purview of Erin Andrews I can’t intelligently comment if she does the job better now or might do the job better in the future.

That being said SI insults our intelligence with these paragraph in their story

Removing the well-regarded and well-connected Oliver from the No. 1 team, not to mention initially wanting her out of sideline reporting altogether, seems counter to what a sports network should want in an NFL reporter. Why the decision to make the switch? SI.com contacted Shanks on Sunday night in Minneapolis, where he was preparing for Fox’s coverage of the MLB All-Star game on Tuesday at Target Field.

“I think in the last five years we have made a lot of changes with the NFL crews,” Shanks said. “We have made changes to keep our coverage across the board fresh, including the addition of Burkhardt and Lynch -– which has been one of the more exciting pairings we have put together. This is kind of the next move in that evolution.”

“Counter to what they want”?  “Wanting to keep coverage across the board fresh”?  please.  Let’s talk some neutral objective facts.

The primary job of a network is to get eyeballs.  The audience for Football is primarily male and  the unspoken job of women in ads, games or broadcast involving Football or any sport is to provide a proximate occasion of sin by causing men to “look at them with lust “.

Exhibit a:

Therefore while it’s a neutral objective fact that Pam Oliver is a beautiful women and has I suspect has put a great deal of effort to maintain that beauty (succeeding admirably) it  is also a neutral objective fact that Erin Andrews is at least as beautiful if not more so than Ms Oliver and as a woman considerably younger (36 vs 53)  is likely to maintain said beauty over the next several years with a lot less effort and Ms. Oliver knows it:

Oliver shied away from saying anything negative about Andrews, though she told Deitsch: “I live in the real world and I know that television tends to get younger where women are concerned.

“Just turn on your TV. It’s everywhere,” she added. “And I’m not saying these younger girls don’t deserve a chance. I know I’ve had my turn.”

Of course Ms. Oliver could take her story to feminists but as Stacy McCain could tell you they would likely not only critique her choice of employment but consider her and her replacement as accessories after the fact in the case of any woman who has had an unfortunate encounter with a jock.

On the bright side for Oliver as the network is FOX I suspect it might be a popular club to wield over at them by their competitors.

Last night I stopped by an event in NH and had the pleasure of interviewing Selina Owens concerning her book The Power Within A Conservative Women Engaging American for God Family & Country.

Ironically although we didn’t meet at the time I found out last night that Selina Owens was part of the Tea Party express convoy that I hitched a ride with back in 2010. Although I didn’t know it at the time there were a few people asking “why is some guy getting on the bus now?”

Of course at the time I had no radio show and I was just becoming known as a national blogger funny how times change.

“They are creatures of that miserable sort who loudly proclaim that torture is too good for their enemies and then give tea and cigarettes to the first wounded German pilot who turns up at the back door. Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient’s soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary.
Screwtape Letter 6

I love humanity, it’s people I can’t stand!
Lucy Van Pelt

If you’ve been following the coverage of last night’s debate you;ve seen the left beating their breasts on the cruelty of the tea party republicans based on a Wolf Blitzer’s hypothetical question concerning a sick person who didn’t buy health insurance.



Talking Points memo
and Morning Joe have both run with the clip contrasting the callous tea party people with their own love of humanity. Joe Scarborough and Mika made it a point to be shocked and disgusted the crowd’s reaction while scoffing at Congressman Paul’s assertion that community not government would take care of this imaginary person.

Strangely enough in all their self righteous bleating, they managed to ignore a more direct question concerning life and death posed by an Afghan Immigrant named Sahar Hekmati:

“As the next president of the United States, what will you do to secure safety and protection for the women and children of Afghanistan from the radicals?”

The murder and oppression of Afghan women is well documented.

Not a hypothetical person

This magazine cover made the Morning Joe crew very uncomfortable at the time, but the memories of that day somehow didn’t bubble up today, they were too concerned with hypothetical sick people than a reality in opposition to their Afghanistan position

This is not unusual for the left, we hear people with armed bodyguards decrying guns, we have people bemoaning their low tax rates as their company dodges taxes, we are scolded on global warming by people with giant carbon footprints.

The reaction today of our media betters and the left horribly shocked at the fate of a non existent person while holding a more nuanced position on the fate of Afghan women like Aisha speaks volumes.

After all to the left, beliefs speak louder than actions.