From SOTI:
“You know, once you’ve got past the thrill of conquest, as a rule, most women are pretty boring. In and out of bed.”
Could even be something I would say, but I’m just an old cynic.
Latest Posts
News Roundup
…
...hope you stay there, you miserable Commiesymp fuckers.
And speaking of aphrodisiacs:
...following the example of their founder, no doubt.
…
Silly Jews, thinking they’d be safe in Amsterdam. Speaking of stereotypes:
…
Introducing our latest feature department:
...it’s just too bad it wasn’t by hanging.
And in The Great Cultural Assimilation Project©:
...wait till they start machine-gunning the rafts.
...Africa wins again.
…
...those damn Swiss raaayyyciss.
…
Let’s EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
...as noted by Insty. Also:
...and my simple solution:
In Furrin News:
...yeah, okay. Wave to the millions of CCTV cameras, wear a miniskirt in Bradford, enjoy those 24-hour waits in the A&E/ER rooms and just don’t post anything “anti-social” or “hateful” on the Internet. Same topic:
...coming soon to a Blue State near you.
Great Moments In Marketing:
...an easy mistake to make, if yer a perv.
In Entertainment News:
...keyword: Manchester. And to the surprise of no one, here’s the “BBC star”:
And in link-free pic-free 
...and even if I used her real name, you still wouldn’t know who she is.
...said tape probably applied by her bedtime companion.
And in the ultimate news summary, where one picture really is worth more than 1,000 words:
Remembrance
On this Veterans Day, here’s a reminder of war as seen through modern eyes:
We will remember them.
Monday Funnies
Even though it’s Monday, I know you don’t want to be disturbed:
…so to speak.
But to help us wake up, some post-election humor, stolen from just about everywhere:
And speaking of ugly non-MAGA women:
Finally, a reminder of the numbers involved, and one of the main electoral issues:
And that’s just according to NCIS…
And just for the hell of it:
I think I’ll celebrate this first post-election Monday by going to the range. (Okay, that’s not much different from any other Monday, but what the hell.)
Classic Beauty: Madeline Smith
Brit beauty Madeline Smith started off as a model, became an actress, starred in a few horror movies from Hammer Films, became a Bond girl and when she became a mother, more or less quit acting to look after her daughter. And good for her.
Fortunately, there’s pictorial history, first in black-and-white (mostly from her modeling days):
…and come to think of it, we can look at her in color some other time.
What an exquisite creature.
Leaving Their Market Behind
In his latest video, Harry Metcalfe takes aim at supercars — or to be more specific, their manufacturers — and their ballooning love affair with technology.
Now Harry lives in a different world from pretty much 99.99% of the rest of the world, because the market for the insanely-priced supercars is absolutely minuscule; and his point is that the market is shrinking still more.
I don’t care about any of that, and I’d bet good money that pretty much none of my Readers could give a rat’s ass about it either, for all sorts of reasons:
- we couldn’t afford the frigging cars even with a decent-sized lottery win;
- even if we could, we have too much common sense to spend that amount of money on an asset that depreciates, on average, about 50% per annum, regardless of how many miles you drive the thing;
- and lastly, we all shrink from the Nanny Technology that takes away from the pure enjoyment of driving (not to mention the intrusive data harvesting and so on, which I’ve ranted about before ad nauseam).
I’m not even going to talk about how fugly all these new super/hypercars look, because that’s also a frequent target for my rants on these pages.
Lest you couldn’t be bothered to spend half an hour in Harry’s company, let me illustrate his point about car depreciation by looking at a car we all know about: the Bentley Continental GT convertible (GTC, for the cognoscenti ). Here is the 2024 model, with its 4.0L V8:
I have to say, by the way, that it looks absolutely gorgeous: very definitely a worthy successor to the 1930s “Blower” “Speed Six” Bentley which won Le Mans several times. It’s price, however, does not look absolutely gorgeous: $340,000 with only a few adornments.
Which is bad enough. Now let’s look at its second-hand value. Here’s a 2015 GTC:
Looks more like a limo than the 2024 model, but essentially it’s the same car (same engine, same luxury interior, etc. etc.) but with… 15,000 miles on the odometer (about 1,500 miles per annum of ownership). Its price: $90,000 (!!!).
All sorts of things come to mind, most of them unprintable anywhere except perhaps on this website.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is no justification — none — that can justify the prices of these upscale cars (and of the supercars we will not speak because Ferrari and the other thieves only make a few of them each year, thus ensuring their consistent “value proposition” — read: snob appeal for the terminally-insecure rich).
Of course, the thieves (and their sycophantic customers) will cry out that it’s all the new whizz-bang technology (“All hail Technology!!!”) that makes their cost of manufacture rocket into the stratosphere.
Unfortunately, as Metcalfe points out in his video, more and more people are looking at all that technology, what’s involved and how much money (not to mention weight) that it adds to the car, and are saying, “Eeeeehhhh I don’t think so, Luigi.”
Which, by the way, might account for this atrocity:
Looks like the More Money Than Sense crowd are taking the $340 grand they would have dropped on a new jazzed-up Bentley, and instead splurging it on a rebuilt version of Ferrari’s entry-level model of the 1970s.
At least the Dino is bereft of anything that could remotely resemble a micochip.
There is a companion piece to this post: it’ll appear next week.