Comment on Political Correctness Run Amok

Halloween and Knotts Berry Farm vs SJW’s describes the efforts of some in the mental health community to ban Halloween rides that featured a mentally ill person. My take:

Forgive me for being a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, but do these people have any idea just how many books, movies and TV shows have been created around a character with a mental illness? Janet Leigh did not get slashed in the shower by a Sunday School teacher! (And what would you rename "Psycho" to be more politically correct?)

The villains in the movie "Sum of All Fears" had to be changed to be sensitive to the fact that depicting terrorists as being from an Arabian country was simply too far fetched! /sarc

No, they were portrayed as Neo-Nazis, which begs the question, If the only group of people we can portray as villains (aside from Big Business) are Nazis... and Hitler, the head of the Nazis was insane, isn't it insensitive to those suffering from mental illness to subject them to that sort of entertainment?

Or history??

Click over and read the whole thing.

"KiRKWOOD"

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

A Kinder, Gentler Brand of Taunting

by Andrew Roman

________________

The National Football is considering the institution of a penalty for the use of the word “nigger” on the football field during a game.  More accurately, a 15 yard infraction would be issued as a “first offense” while a repeat violation would result in the player’s banishment from that particular game.  It’s a proposal that will be on the docket during next week’s NFL Competition Committee meeting. Homophobic slurs will be considered as well. 

One would have to assume – or at least demand (in the name of the Left's most treasured value: equality) – that this sort of rule would apply to any and all slurs of an ethnic, racial or sexual orientation nature. Thus, in theory: No “kikes” on the field, no “spicks” on the sideline, no “fags” in the backfield, no “towelheads” in the end zone, no “white boys” at midfield.  (My educated guess is that "white boy" has been uttered more often on the gridiron than "kike," but I illustrate the point...)

Believe me, I would not weep if I never heard any of these words or phrases again. Arguably, the only thing more stupid than racism (yes, stupid) is making full length motion pictures out of old television series.

Still, there are microphones everywhere on a football field, so it won’t be difficult to zero in on the haters.  After all, the word "nigger" is a racial epithet ... even when used by the race it is meant to degrade, right? A bad word is a bad word.

Come to think of it, maybe this is the stepping stone that proponents of eliminating the word “redskins” have been waiting for. How can we allow such a hateful and racist term as “redskin” to subsist if the n-word is officially punishable with a 15-yard walk-off?

I wonder ..... what if the “slurs” are not ethnic or race based?

Can someone get flagged for calling someone a “girl?”

“Hey, (replace ethnic slur with player's first name), you tackle like my sister!”

Ouch! That'll show 'em!

Sexist maybe?

And what about insulting an opponent’s mother? Certainly, that is inexcusable.

And when the new threshold has been defined and implemented, how long until that line becomes “intolerable?”

And does this ban extend to the music played in the locker room before and after games as well? Will PG-13 lyrics become the new standard in locker rooms from coast to coast?

Obviously, no one is advocating - or even defending - the use of disgusting language. That isn't the point. No one is saying that teams shouldn’t be able discipline its own players in any way they see fit (assuming they have their own rules about such language). But let’s be perfectly honest. If the word “nigger” is used by players toward other players in a way not intended to slur them, the point of this politically correct exercise is what? Exactly what does the use of a racial slur – or any disparaging language – on the field of play have to do with the game itself? Why should the use of the word “nigger” in the middle of a 50-yard game winning drive suddenly affect the actual structure of the competition on the field with a flag? Calling someone a "nigger" should have MORE of an impact on the game than a face mask call? Or a pass interference?

Is this really a problem?

Taunting is as old as the game.

So, now we regulate a kinder and gentler brand of taunting?

________

GOP Supporters Wanted: At Least Six...

Thou Shalt Not Offend: The Word "Redskin"

by Andrew Roman
_________________________________

The issue is a burning one.

In a sea of debt ceiling debate and ObamaCare Rollout disasters, the real question plaguing the collective American mind: Is the name Washington "Redskins" offensive? Is it debasing? Insensitive? Racist?

Indeed, Syria takes a back seat. Benghazi is old news. The IRS thing is just right wing paranoia. Forget the NSA. Right now, it’s all about the word “redskin” and the moth-eaten, primordial mindset that allows such a hateful phrase to continue to exist.

Run a Google search on the subject.

Is it reprehensible? Hateful?

The overwhelming vast majority of posts, articles and commentaries say it is. And if you just happened to arrive from, say, the Planet Zaytox a billion light years away and didn't know any better, you'd think just about every single human being in America is outraged by the name.

And if they aren't…well, they damn well ought to be.

Some web sites, in fact, are so progressive, so forward in their thinking, so wholly sensitive to the pain the name apparently inflicts, they refuse to actually use the word “redskins” when referring to the Washington football squad – like Slate.com, for example (that Mecca of professional football analysis and insight).

At least someone is looking out for us.

Even NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, recently said, “If one person is offended, we have to listen.”

They have to listen.

Let’s see … I’m offended the pledge of allegiance isn't said before football games anymore. I'm offended by the Jacksonville Jaguars silly looking two tone helmets. I'm offended at uniforms where the tops and bottoms are the same color (save for road whites). They look like pajamas.

Anyone in the NFL front offices listening now?

Quite literally, on a dime, this "Redskin" thing is suddenly a hot national issue.

In an era when supporting traditional values means one hates gays, or displaying a Christmas tree in public is a Constitutional infraction, this media-contrived hyper-sensitivity to anything – and I mean anything - that could even remotely be perceived as offensive is so out of control and ridiculous that it is impossible to overstate it.

Thou Shall Not Offend: the commandment that should have been.

To even the most casual observer, it must truly seem to be the mission of the predominantly liberal media to continue to point out  - and prove - at every turn, that racism and bigotry still permeate this country.

It's much like the man who believes that restaurants are unsanitary and dangerous. He eats at a different place every day for seven years until he actually gets sick from something. Then, he proclaims, "See? I told you that people get sick eating in those germ factories!"

The fact is… only modern-day progressives, ever on the hunt for social injustices in every nook and cranny of society, operating on the rabble-rousing fumes of political-correctness, would truly believe that a National Football Team would name and brand itself with a symbol they did not honor or take genuine pride in. And since these champions of social consciousness are the ones who essentially drive the media complex in this country, this ridiculous non-issue has suddenly bubbled up (again) as a pressing national controversy….even though the overwhelming vast majority of Americans (and Native Americans) aren’t offended in the least.

What exactly is there to be offended about?

I ask this in all seriousness.

What makes the word “redskin” an epithet, worthy of mention in the same breath with genuine racial epithets?

It is gravely disingenuous – and intellectually vacuous – to bandy about examples of incontestably offensive nicknames to illustrate the (so-called) callous insensitivity of the name “Redskins”: the Washington Kikes, the Washington Niggers, the Washington Spicks, etc…  Those words have always been used as pejoratives, as insults, as demeaning labels. Such terms were meant to diminish, to belittle, to revile. Those terms were born and cultivated through racism and bigotry.

Not so for the word “redskin.”

The history simply doesn’t bear it out. The culture doesn’t reflect it. The attempts to equate the word with hateful slurs are, at best, products of college dorm-room logic and professorial mumbo jumbo. There’s no foundation in it.

The only thing the word "redskin" is associated with is… football.

For example, person one - let's call him, Hank - meets up with person two - let's call him Trucker - and says the following: "Hey, dude. Guess what? I just ran into a redskin at the mall!"

What do you think Trucker is thinking? Is he thinking Hank just met a Native American? Or is he thinking that maybe Hank met Robert Griffin III and got an autograph?

Or better yet….Hank proclaims, “I HATE the Redskins!”

Is Trucker thinking, “I wonder if he’s referring to the Sioux Nation or the professional football franchise?”

Again I ask: How exactly does the word offend? Because it sounds like it should offend someone?

And who is offended exactly? American Indians?

No, not really.

The sellout crowds that come to see the Redskins play?

Clearly, no.

Those who buy the merchandise and adorn the team colors and logos?

Not.

On the other hand, if, in fact, a team were called the Washington Niggers, who would come? Who would buy the merchandise? Who would want to? Would such a name be born out of respect, honor and admiration?

Come on now....turn on your common sense meters.

After considerable research, it was just about impossible to find the term “redskin,” outside of a football context, in use anywhere over the past hundred years or so. The accounts of racial bias against Native Americans where the word “redskin” was used were nonexistent. (Actually, bias against American Indians at all was practically nonexistent).

There is simply no “R” word legacy to speak of.

The word “redskin” isn’t even Western in origin. It doesn't come from the "white man."

In an article posted at Breitbart.com earlier this year:

A longtime chief of a major Virginia Native American tribe said he would be offended if the Washington Redskins DID change the team name and said society has gotten too "politically correct" and "touchy" these days.

Speaking on Sirius XM NFL Radio's "The Morning Drive" …. Robert "Two Eagles" Green, whom CBS notes "retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March," said most members of his tribe "don’t find" the Redskins name to be "offensive.”

“I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it," Green said.

Chief Green said his research indicated the term came from Indians, and it is "not a term that the white man created." He said Native Americans used the term to refer to themselves in negotiations with white settlers and noted "we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”

ESPN columnist Rick Reilly, who has been earnestly excoriated by those who populate the “tolerant left” for publishing a well-crafted, thoughtful and well-researched article on the subject, writes:

“I definitely don’t know how I’ll tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School — where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American — that the “Redskins” name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea.

“I’ve talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it,” says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. “‘Redskins’ is not an insult to our kids. ‘Wagon burners’ is an insult. ‘Prairie n—–s’ is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids.

But ‘Redskins’ is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I’d like to see somebody come up here and try to change it.”

…

...it’s not going to be easy telling the Kingston (Okla.) High School (57.7 percent Native American) Redskins that the name they’ve worn on their uniforms for 104 years has been a joke on them this whole time. Because they wear it with honor.

“We have two great tribes here,” says Kingston assistant school superintendent Ron Whipkey, “the Chicasaw and the Choctaw. And not one member of those tribes has ever come to me or our school with a complaint. It is a prideful thing to them.”

“It’s a name that honors the people,” says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. “The word ‘Oklahoma’ itself is Choctaw for ‘red people.’ The students here don’t want it changed. To them, it seems like it’s just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.

“My kids are really afraid we’re going to lose the Redskin name. They say to me, ‘They’re not going to take it from us, are they, Dad?’”

If the name truly were offensive – if it was meant to highlight the inferiority of a given race or culture – why on earth would a sports franchise use it?

Again, let those common sense meters buzz loudly.

Let's try and wrap our brains around the logic here with a few silly, yet illustrative, examples…

Would a white supremacy group form a softball team called the “Jews?”

Would a militant black group create a team called the “Whiteskins?”

Absurd, yes....but absurdity is often the best way to highlight absurdity.

The sad thing is: Once someone like Daniel Snyder (owner of the Redskins, who claims he will never change the team's name) is labeled in the press as "bigoted," or "insensitive" or some sort of "phobe" - and once the bandwagon is so bogged down with emotional stragglers from all sectors of American society that it is planted firmly in the mud of political correctness, and once our favorite actors and musicians start sounding the bugle of corporate greed, racism and hatred that must be behind this ongoing injustice - the argument will be lost with no way to win it back.

Daniel Flynn of the American Spectator gives America a little lesson on the history of the name:

“The history of the “Redskins” nickname appears less about Native Americans and more about the economic realities of the early NFL. The $9 billion behemoth was once the latest in a long line of failed attempts at professional football. As I discovered in researching my forthcoming book, The War on Football:  Saving America’s Game, NFL owners — then a motley collection of gamblers and the nouveau-not-so-riche — attempted to market their product as an offseason diversion for fans of the national pastime once that game’s season had gone past its time. So, the team that shared Wrigley Field with the Cubs became the Bears, the team that shared the Polo Grounds with the Giants became the Giants, and the team that eventually shared Tigers Stadium with the Tigers became the Lions after their move to Detroit.

The Redskins started life as the Boston Braves, sharing Braves Field with the Major League Baseball team of that name. After their first year, the football Braves moved about a mile east to Fenway Park. Seeking a name to go with the baseball team with whom they shared a field, the Braves ownership changed their name to the “Redskins.” Get it: Red Sox, Redskins. Even when they moved south and occupied Griffith Stadium along with the Senators, the Redskins remained the Redskins.”

Give it time ... concerned atheists, who have already fought (successfully) to remove a cross from the seal of the City of Los Angeles, will amass in New Orleans and protest the Saints' name;  something about the separation of church and state, I'm sure.

I was asked once: "How would you feel if there was a football team called the 'Brooklyn Jews.' "

I said, "Are you kidding? After millennia of what the Jews had to endure, it would be an amazing honor to have a sports franchise called 'The Jews.' I would LOVE it."

A Work crew of seven men was needed to extract his bottom jaw from the pavement.

_

"Cereal Shot From Guns"? Oh, My!

Anyone else out there old enough to remember when Quaker cereal was advertised as cereal "shot from guns"? Guns!! Guns, I'm telling you!!! This morning, for some reason, the words from an old commercial (newer than this one) to the tune of the 1812 Overture, "This is the cereal that's shot from guns!" came to my mind, and I thought, in a age where students are suspended for drawing guns, making gun noises and generally thinking abut guns, if little Johnny or Mary came to school today, singing the jingle of their favorite cereal, would they be escorted from the school in handcuffs by the local authorities? Sing it with me now...

"This is the cereal that's shot from guns...boom!"

Even the commercial above, if made today, would need a legal disclaimer for when the kid climbs in the cannon or the Quaker sticks his head in: "Warning! Kids: do not try this at home!"

We've come a long way since then, as a society, and not all of it was good.

This is Your Brain on Hate Speech...

According to the Left...

Not Violent Hate Speech:



Violent Hate Speech:



Any questions?

"He's the Cotton Pickin' President"

Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute! I heard that some cotton pickin' pinhead might fire this guy just for using a cotton pickin' idiom???

If this is true, this is political correctness on steroids! As a native Son of the South, I can't tell you how many times I've used the phrase "cotton pickin'", and to my knowledge, none of them were even remotely racial. There have been a lot of us Persons of Pallor picking cotton. This is a tempest in a teapot. A cotton pickin' teapot, I tell ya! Sheesh!

H/T "Beautiful Loser"

Twitvid

Update: He issued a cotton pickin' apology! Didn't have the bolls for it, I guess!

Rick Sanchez Apologizes After Labeling Obama the 'Cotton-Picking President'

Note: If you cotton picking liberals are so cotton picking thin skinned as to let something as trivial as this bother you, then you can cotton picking well guess what my new old favorite phrase is. And you may quote me!

Cross posted at Say Anything

Update II:Rick Sanchez speaks! : "I just said cotton picking because it was a term that I've used because I grew up in the South. It's a point that is often used to illustrate frustration."

Cotton picking Yankees bitterly clinging to their racial stereotypes! Heh.

USDA Director Shirley Sherrod Exposes NAACP/Government/Media Complex

by the Left Coast Rebel

Seeing something like this from a top official in the Federal government (USDA official Shirley Sherrod) is shocking. On the other hand, this shouldn't surprise anyone. Andrew Breitbart writing for Breitbart:

We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

Here's the damning video of Shirley Sherrod speaking before the NAACP in Georgia:



Now if you watched the video above, pay particular attention to part of her speech (1:45) in which she acquiesces the point that ethnocentric Marxism centers on Marxism and not completely on ethnocentrism.

Or something like that - either way, your tax dollars and mine taken from us by gunpoint support this kind of thing.

And don't for a second think that an incident like this is one-of-a-kind. Our Federal Leviathan is packed to the gills with people like Shirley Sherrod. So are the universities, the press.....

The skinny-guy authoritarian that can't quit smoking, putting his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office, as well. Call him the 'grand-poobah' of such.

There's more - and a lot of it at Breitbart. In closing, I particularly love this quote from Andrew Breitbart midway through his piece:

The NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus do not want racial harmony. They want political victory, and the race card is their Stradivarius.

Absolutely quotable - I think I'll print that out.

Update: Shirley Sherrod Resigns! Robert Stacy McCain has all the details here. Discussion via Memeorandum. Cross posted to Left Coast Rebel, Rational Nation.

Racist Rants of a New Black Panther

A few days ago, in "Leaders of a Nation of Cowards" "Acting Stupidly", we looked at the slam dunk case of voter intimidation that the oxymoronic Obama Justice department decided to drop.

Here's about a minute of video of the "choir boy" Holder and Obama are giving a pass to:



Does this fine, upstanding gentleman sound like anyone who would ever get in trouble with the law again?

More at American Glob

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel

Krauthammer on Political Correctness at NASA

"This is a new height in fatuousness. NASA was established to get America into space and to keep is there. This idea to feel good about their past and to make achievements is the worst combination of group therapy, psychobabble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy."

- Charles Krauthammer

NASA was established to get America into space and to keep is there. Could we get that bronzed and placed somewhere up on Capitol Hill? Under Obama, NASA is abandoning the United States preeminence in space in favor of global warming circle jerks and feel good political correctness. This guy has got to go!

More at News Busters
Cross posted at Proof Positive

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel

Leaders of a "Nation of Cowards" "Acting Stupidly"?

Remember when President Obama said that a police department was "acting stupidly" in the arrest of a belligerent Cambridge professor, before he even knew the facts of the case? And remember when Eric Holder called us a "nation of cowards" because we did not want to have open discussions on race?
Would it be fair to say then, that Eric Holder is both stupid and a coward for not pressing charges against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia on account of their race? Is he too cowardly to pursue this case because of race? Because, as far as I can see, this was indeed a "slam dunk" civil rights violation case. There were witnesses, pictures and even video of voter intimidation and the case was dismissed.

Individuals within the Justice department (Obama Justice Department - there's an oxymoron for you!), such as J. Christian Adams have resigned because they were instructed to drop the case and not bring these individuals to justice.

If Eric Holder wants the nation to have a dialogue on race, let's start one here.What reason did you have in not pursuing justice against these men with a small mountain of evidence pointing to their guilt, other than their race?

Mr. President: If you think the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they arrested your friend, before you ever heard the particulars of the case, why don't you acquaint yourself with the stench coming from your "Justice Department", and when you have all the facts, tell us if you think Eric Holder "acted stupidly" in NOT prosecuting these men.

A "nation of cowards" waits with baited breath.



H/T Weasel Zippers
Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything, Lady Cincinnatus

What is an "Authentic" Black Man?

One of these men is an "authentic" black man. One of these men was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. Oh, wait! They're the same guy!!! At least, according to Al Sharpton and a guest on his radio show!

Boyce Watkins: "Another thought, going even deeper I think in terms of race in my opinion there is not a black man on the Supreme Court. You know hey I am going to get a lot of flak for saying that. Ha ha ha ha. We need a black person on the Supreme Court, why not a black woman?"

Well, I can see where someone could be of that opinion! For example, Justice Thomas married a white woman. Doesn't that point to some inauthenticity of blackness?
Oh, wait. Barack's father married a white woman. Never mind!

Why anyone would have to get the imprimatur of a race hustler like Sharpton or this guy Boyce Watkins, (whom Sharpton doesn't seem to disagree with!) before they can be considered "authentically black" is beyond me. Beyond the quite frankly racist overtones, "authentically black" is a code word for "liberal". If any black man strays off the liberal plantation, he risks being branded as somehow "not authentically black".

If Sharpton had any shame, he should be ashamed of himself!

Video is here:


Cross posted at Say Anything

When Fingers are Outlawed, only Outlaws Will Have Fingers!

From the Zero Tolerance Equals Zero Common Sense department, headline:

Ionia kindergartner suspended for making gun with hand

To the little boy's mother, it was just a 6-year-old boy playing around.

But when Mason Jammer, a kindergarten student at Jefferson Elementary in Ionia, curled his fist into the shape of a gun Wednesday and pointed it at another student, school officials said it was no laughing matter.

They suspended Mason until Friday, saying the behavior made other students uncomfortable, said Erin Jammer, Mason's mother.

School officials allege Mason had displayed this kind of behavior for several months, despite numerous warnings.

This kind of behavior? Oh, yeah! Acting like a six year old boy! The article goes on to state that the boy doesn't even have toy guns at home.

Well there's your problem! Forbidden fruit is always sweeter! Depriving this poor child of the pleasures of toy guns has forced him into the seedy, sleazy world of pointing fingers! (An art, of late, mastered by those on the Loony Left!) Punishing this six year old for not being a docile (Democrat) drone is not going to do anyone any good.

And to all you gun owning Democrats with common sense: I do not apologize. Your party is the home of political correctness. It's your party. Either take it back or send it to the ash heap of history before it can do any more harm to our great republic!


H/T the blogprof
Cross posted at Say Anything

Fake Cigarettes? Suck this!

Are you old enough to remember candy cigarettes? Slender white sticks of candy, dyed red on the end, with Red Dye #5, or whatever would send small children into insulin shock, to simulate the glowing tip of the fake cigarette.
Although they are still available through specialty vendors, political correctness spelled their doom decades ago. Have children imitate smokers??? Heaven forbid!

I hadn't thought of these in years, until recently, I've been hearing ads on radio and TV for electronic cigarettes. These smokeless devices produce what is advertised as "nearly odorless" water vapor that one can use to "blow smoke rings".

One TV ad showed that the fake cigarette had a red plastic tip that glowed "like a real cigarette". It was so fake looking, it made me think of the candy. I can't imagine anyone looking cool, puffing on one of these phony electronic cigarettes. I also can't imagine, given the sensitivity of most health Nazis, that this "nearly odorless" vapor would be permitted anywhere that smoking is banned.

But, hey! If you need something to satisfy your oral fixation, knock yourself out! Just be prepared for some good natured snickering at your expense!

Cross posted at Say Anything

Union Jack Banned at Heathrow Airport

It seems that national insanity is not a peculiarly American problem:

ARMED cops patrolling Heathrow Airport have been banned from wearing tiny Union Jack badges in support of British troops.

Top brass claimed the tie-pin badges - which cost £1 ($1.64) with proceeds going to the Help for Heroes charity - were OFFENSIVE.

But one officer asked: "How can the Union Jack be offensive?

"This ruling is even more absurd coming this weekend on the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings.

"We must be the only country ashamed to display our national flag."

So, just who exactly is offended when citizens show support for their own nation or their nation's troops who are putting their lives at risk? The usual suspects!

About 100 officers in the Metropolitan force's SO18 Aviation branch, which patrols Heathrow, bought the inch-square badges.

Seventy per cent of them served in the Forces and many have children fighting in Afghanistan.

Another cop said: "We're wearing the badges with pride. Most importantly, they are to show support for our soldiers at war.

"Nobody has put out orders to remove rainbow symbols that gay and lesbian officers wear. Why discriminate against us?"

After 9/11, many Brits and Canadians wore American flag pins to stand in solidarity with us. Maybe now, it's time for us to return the favor with the Union Jack?

Hat tip Moonbattery
Cross posted at Say Anything

Cartoon Criticism in a Post Bush World

This cartoon has crosshairs all over it:



I mean just look at the self-deprecating way he depicts cartoonists! Slightly goofy looking guy with a bad haircut...bow tie and suspenders over a plaid shirt? C'mon! These guys are artists!

BTW, Brian Farrington doesn't strike me as a guy that fits with Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" speech!