Saturday, January 22, 2005


The Retrosexual Code

This is going around the blogosphere. Grau Magus at his blog Frizzen Sparks (a name I really love - a frizzen is the part of a flintlock rifle that hits the flint and makes a cascade of sparks - and this document is trying to make sparks!) has posted something he calls the Retrosexual Code. Michelle Malkin talked about it on her website, as have other people. It's piece that maybe we should think about - an anti-Metrosexual manifesto, a statement that says, what and how shall we define maleness? What is the cool definition of masculinity? The feminized Metrosexual, the Home Improvement American guy-ness, or the Retrosexual? In the long run, it may be the ladies who know a good thing who make the final decision - who would they rather partner off with?

I am posting the version that Jennifer Martinez posted on her Blog A Collection of Thoughts - she got it in an email, evidently, so it's making the internet circuit, in a slightly cleaned up form.

Real men of the world, stand up, scratch your butt, belch, and yell "ENOUGH!" I hereby announce the start of a new offensive in the culture wars, the Retrosexual movement.

The RetroSexual Code:

A Retrosexual does not let neighbors screw up rooms in his house on national TV. A Retrosexual, no matter what the women insists, PAYS FOR THE DATE.

A Retrosexual opens doors for a lady. Even for the ones that fit that term only because they are female.

A Retrosexual DEALS with IT, be it a flat tire, break-in into your home, or a natural disaster, you DEAL WITH IT.

A Retrosexual not only eats red meat, he often kills it himself.

A Retrosexual doesn't worry about living to be 90. It's not how long you live, but how well. If you're 90 years old and still smoking cigars and drinking, I salute you.

A Retrosexual does not use more hair or skin products than a woman. Women have several supermarket aisles of stuff. Retrosexuals need an endcap (possibly 2 endcaps if you include shaving goods.)

A Retrosexual does not dress in clothes from Hot Topic when he's 30 years old.

A Retrosexual should know how to properly kill stuff (or people) if need be. This falls under the "Dealing with IT" portion of The Code.

A Retrosexual watches no TV show with "Queer" in the title.

A Retrosexual should not give up excessive amounts of manliness for women. Some is inevitable, but major re-invention of yourself will only lead to you becoming a froo-froo little puss, and in the long run, she ain't worth it.

A Retrosexual is allowed to seek professional help for major mental stress such as drug/alcohol addiction, death of your entire family in a freak treechipper accident, favorite sports team being moved to a different city, or favorite bird dog expiring, etc. You are NOT allowed to see a shrink because Daddy didn't pay enough attention to you. Daddy was busy DEALING WITH IT. When you screwed up, he DEALT with you.

A Retrosexual will have at least one outfit in his wardrobe designed to conceal himself from prey.

A Retrosexual knows how to tie a Windsor knot when wearing a tie - and ONLY a Windsor knot.

A Retrosexual should have at least one good wound he can brag about getting.

A Retrosexual knows how to use a basic set of tools. If you can't hammer a nail, or drill a straight hole, practice in secret until you can - or be rightfully ridiculed for the wuss you be.

A Retrosexual knows that owning a gun is not a sign that your are riddled with fear, guns are TOOLS and are often essential to DEAL WITH IT. Plus it's just plain fun to shoot.

Crying. There are very few reason that a Retrosexaul may cry, and none of them have to do with TV commercials or soap operas. Sports teams are sometimes a reason to cry, but the preferred method of release is swearing or throwing the remote control. Some reasons a Retrosexual can cry include (but are not limited to) death of a loved one, death of a pet (fish do NOT count as pets), loss of a major body part. Retrosexuals do not cry for movies. They can get a teary lump in their throat under a few notable exceptions, such as when "the guy" heads out to die and save the day or the flag goes up on Suribachi.

A Retrosexual man's favorite movie isn't "Maid in Manhattan" (unless that refers to some foxy French maid sitting in a huge tub of brandy or whiskey), or "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood." Acceptable ones may include any of the Dirty Harry or Nameless Drifter movies (Clint in his better days), Rambo I or II, the Dirty Dozen, The Godfather trilogy, Scarface, The Road Warrior, The Die Hard series, Caddyshack, Rocky I, II, or III, Full Metal Jacket, any James Bond Movie, Raging Bull, Bullitt, any Bruce Lee movie, Apocalypse Now, Goodfellas, Reservior Dogs, Fight Club, etc .

When a Retrosexual is on a crowded bus and or a commuter train, and a pregnant woman, hell, any woman gets on, that retrosexual stands up and offers his seat to that woman, then looks around at the other so-called men still in their seats with a disgusted "you punks" look on his face.

A Retrosexual knows how to say the Pledge properly, and with the correct emphasis and pronunciation. He also knows the words to the Star Spangled Banner.

A Retrosexual will have hobbies and habits his wife and mother do not understand, but that are essential to his manliness, in that they offset the acceptable manliness decline he suffers when married/engaged in a serious healthy relationship - i. e., hunting, boxing, shot putting, shooting, cigars, car maintenance.

A Retrosexual knows how to sharpen his own knives and kitchen utensils.

A Retrosexual man can drive in snow (hell, a blizzard) without sliding all over or driving under 20 mph, without anxiety, and without high-centering his ride on a plow berm.

A Retrosexual man can chop down a tree and make it land where he wants. Wherever it lands is where he damn well wanted it to land.

A Retrosexual will give up his seat on a bus to not only any women but any elderly person or person in military dress (except officers above 2nd Lt) NOTE: The person in military dress may turn down the offer but the Retrosexual man will ALWAYS make the offer to them and thank them for serving their country.

A Retrosexual man doesn't need a contract -- a handshake is good enough. He will always stand by his word even if circumstances change or the other person deceived him.

A Retrosexual man doesn't immediately look to sue someone when he does something stupid and hurts himself. We understand that sometimes in the process of doing things we get hurt and we just DEAL WITH IT!!!!


All gloves go off, it seems, when someone goes off the Democratic Party minority plantation

Consider what Colbert King notes about the reaction to Condi Rice by members of the left:

Boxer said to Rice: "I personally believe -- this is my personal view -- that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth." Loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war. Ponder the weight of that statement. It comes close, at least in spirit, to the picture of Rice sketched by political cartoonist Pat Oliphant a few weeks ago. In case you missed it, Oliphant drew a big-lipped, bucktooth Rice perched like a parrot on President Bush's arm. Bush was speaking to Rice in baby talk, with Rice replying: "Awwrk!! OK Chief. Anything you say, Chief. You Bet, Chief. You're my HERO, Chief."

It's hard to imagine a more demeaning and offensive caricature of a prospective secretary of state, let alone the most senior official on the national security staff. It's equally difficult to understand what prompted Boxer to imply that Rice is little more than a diligent echo of Bush's thoughts. There's nothing in Rice's background or in her performance to suggest that she is a mindless follower of presidential orders. In fact, Rice comes across as just the opposite.

The liberal establishment, dominantly white, have said the nastiest things abouat Gonzales and Rice, that if a person from any other political persuasion would have said it, there would be huge outcries about the racism in the talk. Even though some Black activist groups have made a bit of complaint, it seems more that the left doesn't care, or backs off only slightly.

It is one things to have real disagreements on Rice and her policies, and to address that in real debate, and it's another thing to talk about her in the old racist terms which America has worked so hard to transcend. Instead of drawing on the old evil, women and minorities should consider hard what this really means to their status - and not let the old guard denigrate the levels people are actually achieving. To quote Mr. King once more:

The Boxer-Oliphant-Sylvester take on Condoleezza Rice stands in sharp contrast to the assessment offered by Dorothy Height, chair and president emerita of the National Council of Negro Women, who wrote in a letter to The Post this week: "Despite the challenges she will face, Ms. Rice's appointment is a time for women of color to smile."

Friday, January 21, 2005


Medical Ethics in Britain walking a slippery slope?

Charles Colson writes about Mary Warnock, supposedly one of the lights of medical ethics in the UK, who recently stated that she thought the sick and old have an obligation to die to ease the burden on their families:

It’s frightening to think that someone so high up in a nation’s government has such a cavalier attitude toward human life. But Warnock is hardly alone. Parliament is currently considering a “Mental Capacity Bill” that would authorize third parties, chosen by a patient, to make major medical decisions for that patient if he or she was no longer deemed capable of doing so. As some members have pointed out, this bill—especially with the unclear way it’s worded—could easily lead to the killing of people who don’t want to be killed. Unfortunately, other members of Parliament are taking Warnock’s position in the highly contentious debate.

Warnock’s version of medical ethics is disheartening, but not surprising. Not long ago, we told you about a Dutch hospital’s campaign for permission to take the lives of terminally ill babies—and the hospital’s statement that they were already doing it without permission. When even doctors, trusted with protecting and preserving human lives, can’t be trusted to respect those lives, how can we expect governments to do so?

Each step down this slope is a step that says "Your value of a human is only there as long as the state says you are worth having around." It's a dangerous, dehumanizing place to go.

Sunday, January 16, 2005


Another Note About the Lack of Academic Freedom at Foothills College

Now, not only are you supposed to be intimidated and told to see the counselor because your professor disagrees with you, if he's angered and you complain, there is this:

Professor Files Grievance Against Pro-American Kuwaiti Arab Muslim Student for Revealing Classroom Intimidation

Free Speech Issue Adds To Ongoing College Controversy. In an ongoing controversy at Foothill College, Political-Science Professor Joseph Woolcock filed a grievance against student Ahmad Al-Qloushi for mentioning Woolcock's name in the media. Don Dorsey, Dean of Student Affairs, summarized the grievance as, “Professor Woolcock feels harrased by your (Al-Qloushi) having mentioned his name to the media.”

Los Altos Hills, CA (PRWEB) December 10, 2004 -- On Tuesday, December 7th, in an ongoing controversy at Foothill College, Political-Science Professor Joseph Woolcock filed a grievance against student Ahmad Al-Qloushi for mentioning Woolcock's name in the media. Don Dorsey, Dean of Student Affairs, summarized the grievance as, “Professor Woolcock feels harrased by your (Al-Qloushi) having mentioned his name to the media.”

On Wednesday December 1st, Foothill College Political-Science Professor Joseph Woolcock tried to intimidate student Ahmad Al-Qloushi into seeing a therapist because of a Pro-American essay he wrote in Woolcock's class. The thesis of Al-Qloushi's essay is that the US constitution was a very progressive document, which has contributed to freedom beyond America's borders. Al-Qloushi and the Foothill College Republicans defended that intellectual diversity must be respected on campus, and are lobbying to have the "Academic Bill of Rights" adopted as official policy by the college’s elected Board of Trustees. Professor Woolcock's name was mentioned on numerous websites including and

“This (Woolcock’s) grievance will not detour us from our goal,” said Cori Jenab, Vice-President of Foothill College Republicans. “This grievance ignited a First Amendment rights outrage from the kindling of existing controversy at Foothill College.”

"Intellectual diversity must be respected at Foothill College," said Ahmad Al-Qloushi. "This grievance will not detour us from our goal of having Foothill's Board of Trustees pass the ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ as official school policy."

Woolcock filed the grievance through an institutional process normally used by students who experience inappropriate behavior on behalf of Foothill teachers such as an "act or threat of intimidation or general harassment." To learn more about this grievance process, please visit Dorsey was not able to release the case number or text of the grievance at this time.

Ahmad Al-Qloushi and Cori Jenab are available for immediate interview.

For more information about this controversy, please visit To learn more about the Academic Bill of Rights, please visit
Kiss academic freedom goodbye, hello Stalinist Higher Education!

Chronological Overview of Foothill Outrage
By Ahmad Al-Qloushi, 12/11/04

November 24th: An Essay is Assigned in Ahmad Al-Qloushi political science class, the topic is: "Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not "ordained and established" by "the people" as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interest."

*This essay topic asked students to express a certain point of view

Ahmad Al-Qloushi submits an essay of which the thesis is, "The US constitution was a very progressive document, which has contributed to freedom beyond America's borders."

November 29th: Professor Woolcock returns the paper without a grade and he asks Ahmad Al-Qloushi to see him the next day.

December 1st: Ahmad Al-Qloushi Sees Professor Woolcok, who tries to intimidate Al-Qloushi into seeing the school therapist. He says statements like, "America is not God's gift to the world" and "Your views are irrational" and "You need regular psychotherapy" He even threatens to call the Dean of International students (this Dean has the power to take away student's visas)

Dec 2nd: Ahmad Al-Qloushi and the Foothill College Republicans decide to publicize the outrage. The message being, "This is not an isolated case...The only way to guarantee that intellectual diversity is respected is to have Foothill's elected Board of Trustees adopt the "Academic Bill of Rights."

Dec 4th: and pickup this story

Dec 5th: Ahmad Al-Qloushi is a guest on a talk radio show in Kansas City. Numerous e-mails are sent to Board of Trustees members expressing shock and urging them to pass the Academic Bill of Rights as official school policy.

Dec 6th: Ahmad Al-Qloushi is a guest on the Brian Sussman Show on 560 KSFO in Northern California. After his appreance, Barbara Simpson calls Ahmad and invites him on her show on Saturday Dec. 11th.

Dec. 7th, Professor Woolcok files a grievance against Ahmad Al-Qloushi for harassment. Don Dorsey, Dean of Student Affairs, summarized the grievance as, "Professor Woolcock feels harassed by your (Al-Qloushi) having mentioned his name to the media." Dorsey said that he could not show Ahmad the grievance but he would "send it by [physical] mail"

* We think it's an effort to block our supply of material to give the press and to kill the story

Dec. 8th: A local GOP group donates the money for us to send press release #2 on a newswire service.

Dec 10th: Press Release #2 makes Yahoo and Google News and is (so far) read by 15k people and 70 journalists have read it (so far).

Dec 11th: Ahmad Al-Qloushi to appear on Barbara Simpson Show at 4PM

Professor Woolcock has committed many offenses, some of these are:

1) Singled out political or religious beliefs for ridicule -according to the professor, Arabs should not have pro-American views
2) Forced students to express a certain point of view in assignments
3) Threatened to participate in psychotherapy
4) Attempted to limit Ahmad Al-Qloushi's of the press and freedom of speech by filing a grievance against Al-Qloushi for mentioning Woolcock's name.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?