General Lee speaking

As The Dukes of Hazzard vanishes from cable channels, the Friar gets what ought to be the final word:

Both TV Land and Country Music Television (CMT) were airing Dukes, but are no longer. TV Land will replace it with reruns of Bonanza, a series free of racism and noted for its enlightened portrayal of Chinese immigrant cooks.

Oh, and comparatively speaking:

For the record, I enjoy Bonanza much more than Dukes, because the latter is very very dumb and there’s only so much dumb Catherine Bach’s legs can erase.

If you’d like to test that latter assertion:

Catherine Bach suitably attired

Now: do you feel smarter? Even a little?

One more try:

Catherine Bach suitably attired

Brilliance surely is within your grasp.





17 comments

  1. fillyjonk »

    3 July 2015 · 5:16 pm

    If her legs really could erase dumbness, we’d need her photo hanging in every classroom and legislative office in the land.

    (I suspect the effect of her legs is very gender – or perhaps, “orientation” specific. I feel nothing from looking at them other than perhaps a vague envy.)

    Also, is she wearing pantyhose? It looks like she is.

  2. CGHill »

    3 July 2015 · 5:40 pm

    Definitely in the second picture: blow it up enough and you can get a hint of seam along the inner edge of her left foot. First picture, I’d say “probably.”

  3. backwoods conservative »

    3 July 2015 · 5:41 pm

    I could get stupid over that. I’ve been stupid for less.

  4. fillyjonk »

    3 July 2015 · 7:18 pm

    There’s also an odd shininess in that second picture that legs don’t normally have. Or at least that my legs don’t normally have.

  5. Brett »

    3 July 2015 · 7:39 pm

    For those of other persuasions, I suppose the erasure might be achieved by Messrs. Wopat and Schneider’s pecs and/or shoulders?

  6. CGHill »

    3 July 2015 · 8:37 pm

    In this largely barelegged age, various vendors sell something which, for lack of a better term, could be called “leg gloss.” Jergens, for instance, once introduced a tube of stuff they dubbed “natural glow daily moisturizer,” and an advertisement for it managed to include, on a single page, three pairs of perhaps overly thin but otherwise flawless legs. A month or two later, they brought out a facial version, likely almost the same stuff, with the tagline “Why should your legs get all the attention?” The illustration: the upper halves of the same three models. (Not these three models, however.)

  7. backwoods conservative »

    3 July 2015 · 8:55 pm

    Look at the toes of her right foot in the second picture. That’s where I see the clearest evidence that she’s wearing hose. It shows up a bit in the first picture too.

  8. McGehee »

    3 July 2015 · 11:16 pm

    Yep; pantyhose, both pictures.

    Now why the hell am I looking at her toes!!??

  9. backwoods conservative »

    4 July 2015 · 6:29 am

    Because I toed you to.

  10. McGehee »

    4 July 2015 · 11:17 am

    You heel.

  11. CGHill »

    4 July 2015 · 11:28 am

    This conversation is rapidly becoming arch.

  12. Tatyana »

    5 July 2015 · 9:08 am

    You all heels!

    I always suspected that popular notion about evo-bio necessitated attractiveness of waist, all that talk about waist/hips ratio, the ‘hourglass figures” etc – is pure BS.
    As witnessed by this pic and reaction on it by specimens in the thread.
    The object on the picture has no waist to speak of. If she would stand straight, w/o artificially compensating with posture for lack of curves below her breasts, she’d look like a 15yo boy with pumped-in-silicone.

    No matter! A cock fight follows.
    Here’s your answer to all those anorexic models, unisex fashions,e tc.

  13. backwoods conservative »

    5 July 2015 · 9:23 am

    I heel at her command.

    There’s not a 15 year old boy anywhere who could get me to react the way she does.

    As far as waists go, I’d rather have fat than scrawny any day. Chubby girls are the sexiest creatures on Earth.

  14. CGHill »

    5 July 2015 · 11:34 am

    It’s a matter of focus. And in this particular instance, no one was focusing on anything above the bottom hem of her shorts.

  15. Tatyana »

    5 July 2015 · 2:23 pm

    Then 15yo boy argument is even…er…apter

  16. CGHill »

    5 July 2015 · 3:45 pm

    There’s an entire subculture devoted to turning boys into (apparent) girls; I have no doubt that some lad can be done up in Daisy Dukes and whatnot and look very much like this.

    Mostly, I’m amused by the concept.

  17. GOODSTUFF »

    5 July 2015 · 11:46 pm

    Catherine Bach Hosts this monumental
    Happy Birthday America issue

    http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com/2015/07/goodstuffs-blogging-magazine-197th-issue.html

RSS feed for comments on this post