And she very well should be.

Disgusting and repulsive. I do not approve!

Cheerleaders to unveil demure uniforms after complaints
Story Updated: Oct 3, 2008 at 8:26 AM PDT
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press

University of Idaho cheerleaders will unveil their new, more demure, uniforms at the home football game Saturday against Nevada.

Complaints that the previous uniforms were too short and revealing prompted the change.

Shelly Robson, adviser to the school’s Spirit Squad, said the new uniforms better represent the university, which is in Moscow, Idaho, about 80 miles southeast of Spokane, Wash.

“As a public institution, we are responsive to the community that supports us and we are stewards of our image,” Robson said. “The old uniforms were not appropriate for or reflective of Idaho.”

Now for a little bit of perspective.

If Florida decides the upcoming election like it did in 2000, and if McCain has only 50 more votes in Florida than Obama…we’re going to get a repeat of eight years ago that makes that previous election and the following fiasco look like…nuthin’. It will be a riot. A real riot. In the streets. And God help the elections officials who have a machine plugged in wrong, or taken offline, or getting a bad chip or power supply at the worst possible moment, or whatever.

We’re going to hear all about counting every vote. We’re going to hear it served up again and again and again, in the context that a vote for Obama is important, a vote for McCain/Palin somehow less so.

In other words — to refresh your memory — “justice” will be measured in terms of The Chosen One winning. Because that’s the way it worked back then. That’s how it will be presented. Repeatedly. Again.

Meanwhile.

What do you think would’ve happened if they held a vote about new vs. old cheerleader uniforms?

In fact, how many complaints do you really think there were? Every time we get that kind of tidbit of information in the wake of stories like this, it turns out to be staggeringly low. Single digits. One or two.

I say, it’s one frumpy housewife. That’s my bet.

“We invite our fans and critics alike to join us with a sportsmanlike approach to these events,” [squad member and new coach Jessica] Gudgel said. “The old uniforms simply didn’t work out. It’s time now for everyone to let us get back to what we do, which is to be strong, effective representatives of the University of Idaho.”

Shrew. In fact, maybe you’re the person who complained.

That Jessica Gudgel was already on the squad, makes this all the more reprehensible because now it becomes a story all about control. Cheerleaders are there, to be watched. So they want people to watch. But if people will watch them perform with the skimpy uniforms, but wouldn’t watch with the new dowdy frumpy uniforms, they’re not cool with that. You’re supposed to watch us perform for the reasons we want you to be watching us perform or not at all.

Uh huh. What do we say when men want to control women this way?

But I stand by my question. How many people really did complain. As a percentage. That’s what I would like to know. Because, eight years ago, when it was thought that 49.999% of the electorate was dictating the outcome, that was supposed to be the beginning of the end of all of civilization and a lot of people are still running around thinking it was. And then we’re supposed to think this is somehow reasonable.

Just goes to show what we’ve been saying for a long time. The subject turns to good lookin’ women in skimpy clothes, and suddenly people completely lose their ability to think straight about anything.

This blog, which nobody actually reads anyway, takes perverse pleasure in the nonsensical reactions ordinary people show to beautiful girls in skimpy clothes. There’s almost always a visual aid to go with the story, of course, and that is always pleasing. But of far greater interest than that is the human behavior aspect.

People do not make sense when they do their snarking about beautiful women in skimpy clothes. The most common nonsensical thing I see happen, is that the objection to the girl in skimpy clothes is given far greater visibility than the underlying reason for so objecting. In fact, most of the time, it is left up to the audience to just kind of…”get.”

For that reason, I thought I’d put together a list of reasons good-looking girls should NOT wear skimpy clothes. I decided to do this after chuckling over this long, drawn-out debate under the “Girls of Ryan Air” calendar started by some guy named “Will.” Will was unusually forthcoming about what he didn’t like.

I really don’t appreciate these off-topic posts about bikini-clad girls or playboy photo shoots. While any smart alecky kid can make the case that it is travel-related (“The girls in bikinis are stewardesses of an airline and people use airlines to travel. So there.”), this really has nothing to do with interesting travel destinations, tips, deals, or gear–the kinds of things a travel blog would be expected to cover.

More than that, it’s just tactless. Who wants to be reading a travel blog at work or in a public library and have someone walk by when the first thing on your screen is a photo of a girl in a bikini top in a suggestive pose?

Poor Will. Must be a terrible ordeal driving down the road being forced to look at billboards.

Girl Friday, who was linked by Dustbury, was a little bit more coy.

Dear 70-ish Woman at Costco This Morning:

You look great! Clearly you work out. You were glistening with sweat and your hair looked damp beneath your visor this morning as you perused the produce at Costco. Perhaps you had just come from a tennis match? I’m guessing some sport with alot of arm action since your arms looked tanned and well toned.

Speaking of arms: cute little sleeveless top you had on. Very sporty! And it perfectly matched you skirt (or was it a skort?). They must have come as a set. And it showed your legs off nicely. I could tell that it was no illusion that you work hard at keeping fit, because I could see almost ALL of your legs. Yup! Nearly right on up to that mysterious part of womanhood that, well, some of us, like to be a little bit more mysterious about.

This is a little bit too much sarcasm for me — by which I mean, not that I disapprove, but that it’s tough for me to figure out the intended meaning. The 70-ish woman looked too good? Not good enough? What?

Alright, are we ready for our list of why beautiful women should wear more clothes? I hope so. There aren’t too many reasons, but whenever people complain about girls in skimpy clothes it never seems to fail — they leave it up to me to figure out what they’re talking about, with their bullying “Can I Get An Amen Here?” preaching, and hey it’s not gonna work. I’m a straight guy. I like beautiful women in skimpy clothes.

But let’s put the list together. I figure there are three reasons:

1. Inappropriate

If, say, an attractive woman happens to be a stockbroker and she’s selling me on a possible investment — I do not want to see a skirt that ends more than five inches above the knee. She’s pulling a scam.

2. She doesn’t look good

Too much cottage cheese, and that’s a thigh that should be covered-up. Muffin-tops mean the shirt should be longer.

3. She looks too good

I expect this is the problem most of the time. Way most of the time.

Women do not like men to get an eyeful of something better looking. They just don’t. I suppose I can understand that…right up until they do the “ringleading” and expect people to hop onto the bandwagon. People who are straight men, like me. Eh, sorry. Like I said, I like good-looking girls in tiny skimpy clothes.

Partly because they look good.

And partly because when they’re around, the bitchy women who want me to suffer just for being a straight man, must be far away. I find the older I get, the more important the second of those two reasons is to me, in relation to the first.

Anyway, tomorrow’s the Fourth of July. So to me, it seems like a strange time to be bitching about women wearing short skirts to Costco. It’s hotter than blazes out there, and nobody’s working in an office. What do you expect to see? Burkhas?

Cool 3D animation of an automatic pistol. There are others, but I liked this one.

I like this one too, for reasons that should be obvious. I like the design of the instrument. Smooth finish, beautiful lines.

These shooters are having a little bit of trouble holding theirs (language warning for some).

So’s this one.

These ladies are having much better luck.

As is this one.

Gerard started it with his mini-gallery (click the lovely Catherine to view)…

In reply, we showcased our shot of gorgeous Natalie Wood…

Gerard said “I have more” and he must have meant it, for here is his latest…

…and here is ours. From the classic commercial.

This can’t possibly end well. Or can it?

Update: I just have to post this again. Partly because it’s always good to remain sympathetic to the sensibilities of people who might be offended by such visuals…for what reason, gosh, I just don’t know. And partly because it’s just funny and I like posting it.

Not in official attire, anyway.

The skimpy outfits worn by the buxom waitresses would not be considered “proper attire” at the race track and the girls might never make it past officials at the front gate – even though the restaurant chain is one of the jockey’s sponsors.

Women on Belmont Stakes day are encouraged to wear “dresses, skirts or pantsuits” with “no jeans, shorts or abbreviated wear permitted,” the New York Racing Association proclaims on its Web site.

No one at Belmont Park said the women would be banned, but they might want to think twice about their dress code when they head to the track in the morning.

“NYRA has certain restrictions that pertain to proper attire and it is doubtful that the Hooters uniform or outfit would be considered proper attire,” a source said.

I’m not going to go so far as to say pantsuits are obscene…yet. But we’re on our way there. After that Senator Hillary decade, I’ve just about had enough, and if someone did declare them obscene I wouldn’t shed a tear.

What can I say. Blurring the gender divide offends me.

Banning “abbreviated wear” from the race track? I can appreciate the logic. It’s a sport of formality and tradition. Still and even, though, I have to say, even with protocol — strong-arming a sponsor out of showing it’s trademarks at a major event, is a little weird.

Why does this concern me? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Cold beer makes me kinda happy…hot chicken wings make me kinda happy…girls half my age in skimpy clothes, make me kinda happy…all three of them together make me just a little bit more happy.

Being a good, expansive distance away from the nearest person who frowns upon those things — as in, out of eyesight or earshot — that makes me enormously happy. Indescribably.

And it’s a little flummoxing to see the Hooter’s culture mixing it up with the goo-gooders…in whatever form they arrive. Makes me wonder what’s coming next.

H/T: Sports By Brooks.

From another one of my old stomping grounds, we have a story of…I guess what you get when you cross Hooter’s with Starbuck’s. Naturally they had to wait for me to leave before giving the green light. Bastards.

Sometimes wearing little more than pasties and bikini bottoms, the scantily clad baristas at [Grab ‘N’ Go Espresso Owner Bill] Wheeler’s stands have scores of well-tipping customers.

While customers are expressing support with their pocketbooks, some people are complaining that these new businesses are pushing boundaries too far.

They’ve told law enforcement officers and elected officials that they think the stands should be more tightly regulated.

“I’m not against people making money,” said Kimberly Gainza, 37, of Everett. “What I’m against is how they’re going about doing it. It’s not right — on a road where everybody can see.”

Gainza got a jolt a few weeks ago while stuck in traffic on Highway 99. She spotted a barista with bright blue stickers strategically placed on her chest standing at a stand’s drive-up window.

As long as genitals and nipples are covered, police say the stands do not violate indecent exposure laws. Health officials and state Labor and Industries officials say there are no clothing requirements for baristas.

Gainza said she wants to change that and is hoping she can persuade policymakers to clamp down.

Damn, I do love stories about half-naked women. It’s like the pictures aren’t worth half as much fun as the comically stupid things people are going to be saying about the half-naked women and their half-nakedness. Gosh darn it! There’s something wrong with that! Gimme time, I’ll think of something.

One thing though. How come this Gainza person’s last name isn’t hyphenated? And does she teach her woman’s studies class at Everett Community, or at You-Dub?

Awhile ago I had added the misadventures of Carmen Kontur-Gronquist, Mayor of Arlington, OR to my “Flesh! Oh No!” archives in which we keep close tabs on the the sight of good-lookin’ women in skimpy clothing inspiring reactions from others that are…bollywonkers.

I do not mean to join ranks with those who mindlessly drivel out stale cliches, like…”in America, we’re sexually repressed…in other countries, they let women go topless on the beach…there’s something about America where blah blah blah…” To our minds, those babbling idjits are living proof that you can have a good point to make, but by relying on lazy thinking and favoring too much your initial prejudices, come to logically weak conclusions anyway. Yes, most of our localities insist the ladies wear all of their bathing suits in public — and your point is?

But at the same time, it is quite silly to indulge in any & all condemnation in the presence of a lady in the flesh, or of a picture of such a female — or of a suggestion of a picture of such a female — in less than complete attire. As if her judgment, or lack thereof, in what to wear somehow justifies any silly decision you have to make about how much to get worked up over it. This, we contend, is a problem in twenty-first century America. It is one of two subjects, wholly unrelated to one another, that reliably inspires large numbers of people to dribble out the most perverse nonsense as if on cue.

And some of this nonsense has served as a “pretext” for bouncing out the Mayor of Arlington…

According to the person who spearheaded the recall drive, Ron Miller, the vote was 142 in favor and 139 against the recall of Mayor Carmen Kontur-Gronquist.
:
“My reaction is that the democratic process took place, and that is a good process that we have in the United States, and it’s fair,” she said.
:
[Miller] said Gronquist will leave office immediately. The Arlington City Council President will take over as mayor until a new mayor is selected.

As for Gronquist, she said she is selling a poster of herself on eBay. A portion of the proceeds, she said, will go to the Arlington city ambulance company.

The ridiculous thing about this is that the real subject of the recall seems to have something to do with some decisions the Mayor made about golf courses. The underwear-picture thing, according to all the information I’ve been able to gather, was just the camel’s nose in the tent.

No self-respecting activist would say “I want the Mayor recalled because I found a picture of her in her underwear,” but they ended up doing that very thing. Had the golf decisions stood, but the underwear photo never come to light, this thing never would have gotten off the ground. And so her tragic tale goes into the file of evidence of modern busybody Dark Matter, the stuff that holds the cosmos that is the American Taliban together. Bible-thumping tightasses and jealous frumpy housewives who want to go out on their daily peregrinations without seeing any bare elbows and toes belonging to any ladies who might happen to look nice.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: This is rooted in jealousy, plain and simple, whether the complainant is a lady or a gentleman. If a female happens to come off as heavy, poorly-maintained or otherwise substandard, she can flaunt all she wants. You read about an unsuspecting lass getting in a peck of trouble over a swimsuit photo, and you know she’s lookin’ good.

H/T: Ace.

I had to capture this letter to the Bismarck Tribune from yet another ignorant tightass about one of my favorite subjects…the sloppy and intellectually unsound confusion between the fine, clean, tastefully-run family establishment Hooter’s, and an ordinary strip club. It goes excused pretty much everywhere else. NOT here.

If the issues are important to a person as a mother, father, grandparent, uncle or aunt, one critical step each can take is to avoid this restaurant. I believe that to suggest it is a great place for pubescent boys to hang out, or is a “family restaurant,” is one step short of ludicrous. People should take the small step of not frequenting this establishment and tell their children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews why they are taking such action. It will be an incredible lesson on values that they can pass on to those impressionable youngsters. Quite possibly, those children might carry that lesson forward and teach it to their own children, thus creating a ripple of change.

Oh, blow it out your ass lady. What “values” are these? Straight men should never get a peek at anything nice, among the selection the Good Lord designed them to appreciate lookin’ at? Why’s that, so the bar doesn’t get raised too high for the mopey, dopey, shrill shrieking shrews out there who figure they’re somehow “entitled” to their knight in shining armor whom they can virtually imprison in a cloistered domicile filled with Hugh Grant movies, irritating little dogs in purses, and stuck-up faux French restaurants?

It is urgent — URGENT — that we stop putting up with this. There are too many people like this trying to crusade for “ripples of change”…for no purpose more noble, than that men be denied fun. That’s all it is. Little biddies who are threatened by the idea of men having fun.

You know why that is, don’t you? They see men as beasts of burden. You wouldn’t watch television with an ox, would you? Well, that’s how these ignorant, miserable women see men. They don’t “love” men, in the sense that you get a sense of joy when a person you “love” is made happy. They just don’t have those kinds of feelings, for whatever reason, for their men. They figure you don’t share a life with men, you just make a man do things for you. When you wake up in the morning, when you go to bed at night, every minute in between.

I think they could just be inexperienced. You know, I’ve learned something through the years about men and women: When they are together, the mood of the couple is dictated by the man’s happiness and by the woman’s misery.

Simply put, a man can’t be happy if his woman is miserable. And a woman can’t be miserable if her man is happy. Where these selfish bitches lack some perspective, is they have simply never given it a try. Just go out on the town with the fella, share your life with him the way the Good Lord intended, make him happy and see what mood the rest of the family has after that.

Never been tried. How sad.

And then they write letters to be printed in their local newspapers, proving it.

Flesh! Oh, No! IX

Pajamas Media blogger Pamela, who is Atlas, video-blogs from a beach in her bikini.

Cracks me up. She’s a right-winger. Not known for being politically correct. And she video-blogs all the time. Now she does it in a bikini, and we have this buzz throughout the “blogosphere” about whether that’s proper or not.

No, it’s not like we’re drowning in that kind of screaming and bitching, there are plenty of people who have no idea who she is. Before the beach scene as well as after. But the carping is out there. I won’t go out gathering links, and I won’t post a screen cap. No time right now.

Lookin’ good, Pamela. But you knew that.