Monday, December 31, 2007

Happy New Year!!

New Year's Eve fireworks over Niagara Falls.

On this last day of 2007, I am thankful for my family and friends.

I remember our military men and women.

I remember General Patraeus. He's my choice as man of the year, even if he is only 5th on Time Magazine's list: 1. Vladimir Putin 2. Al Gore 3. J.K. Rowling 4. some dude from China 5. General Patraeus.

I remember Hillary Clinton's words to General Patraeus in a Senate hearing:
[To believe you] requires the willing suspension of disbelief.
I will translate:
General Patraeus, you are a liar.

I remember the grief of Christian Golczynski, and the loving sacrifice of his father. And I cry.

I remember American soldiers and the Iraqi boy they saved from a well. A wonderful story.

I remember the inspiration of Travis Manion. He saw evil, and he fought it. He was the best our country had to offer.

I remember Cathy Seipp. She was gracious. She was ruthless. Mickey Kaus: "She was so grouchy! She just wouldn’t take any shit at all." Cathy made me laugh. Hard. And suddenly.

I remember the inspiration of Shiri Negari. Her presence, and her vitality, are moving. I hope to be one-tenth as present and as vital as she was in her life. She was killed, not by Islam, but by Islamism - including Islamism in the person of Hamas sponsor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I remember the inspirational faith of Jeanne Assam. She walked directly into an ambush, shooting all the way, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I remember the inspiration of Aqsa Parvez. She wanted to live, to love, to taste life. She was almost certainly killed when her father acted on his evil interpretations of both Islamism and tribal honor codes.

I remember first reading about Horatius:
Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods,

I remember Appalachian State, University of Louisiana-Monroe, and the Miami Dolphins.

I remember the Sunni and Shia of Baghdad, rebuilding St. John's Church, and purposefully attending worship with the Christians of their neighborhood.

I remember Joe Lieberman's moral courage; and that freedom saved 89,000 Afghan children this year; and grace in the Blue Ridge mountains; and why I believe in Christianity.

I remember my 6 year old niece (which is all she wants - for me to think of her):
Niece: "It's my birthday!"
smile smile smile smile smile smile smile
smile smile smile smile smile

I remember Dallas Cowboys fullback Deion "Cricket" Anderson. He was living in an oncampus equipment building at UConn last fall. He made the Dallas Cowboys roster this season. Sweet.

I remember Richard Jewell. He knew his purpose in life: public safety. He took his job seriously, and was vilified for it. We can all learn a lesson from him about standing for principle amidst foolish and even corrupt criticism. Joe Lieberman currently stands in Richard Jewell's shoes. Richard Jewell was an honorable guy, and a fine American.

I remember Democrats surreptitiously trying to reopen a vote in the House of Representatives - outside the rules of that government body - in order to rig the final count in their favor. Shameful. Corrupt. Unprecedented.

I remember Democrats rooting against American success in a war. I will remember Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn's honest words. He said it would be “a real big problem for us [Democrats who want the U.S. out of Iraq]" if General Petraeus presented a positive Sept. report on progress in Iraq. Not for a moment did those Dems consider that - if we are successfully helping Iraqi democracy succeed - maybe we should stay and complete the mission ... for the sake of, you know: America's future, the Iraqi people, defeating evil, humanity, stuff like that.

I remember this candidate for quote of the year:
"As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch."

- Headline over a McClatchy News Service story by Jay Price and Qasim Zein

I remember the Gathering of Eagles veterans who refused to allow anti-war protesters to swarm over the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

I remember, on April 26, finishing a long process of culling this blog's archives down to 95 posts. This post I'm compiling is about to be The End Zone's 246th blogpost.

If you've read a portion of the 246: I hope you remember some good things from them. And HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

General Patraeus: "Get it done."

A blogpost I compiled in August, yet did not publish:

Peggy Noonan talks about Gen. Patraeus, and about the coming September moment. Link

She mentions Gen. Patraeus being shot in the chest in a training accident in 1991. The title of this post comes from his instructions to his surgeon, who happened to be future Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

As then Colonel Patraeus lay in the Emergency Room, Dr. Frist outlined the significant dangers of the various options available. There was an excellent chance Col. Patraeus would die upon the operating table. Col. Patraeus interrupted Dr. Frist's recitation of dangers and of variables. Col. Patraeus said "Don't hesitate. Get it done."

Peggy Noonan doesn't mention, probably because she doesn't know, some circumstances surrounding that story. Michael Yon:
A couple weeks ago, LTC Fred Johnson told me a story about General Petraeus. Back when LTC Johnson was Captain Johnson, and General Petraeus was Colonel Petraeus, Colonel Petraeus was Captain Johnson’s new commander. They were doing a live-fire exercise at a range at Fort Campbell when a young soldier named Specialist Terrence Jones tripped and accidentally fired his weapon while conducting a live-fire assault. The bullet from Specialist Jones’ weapon struck Colonel Petraeus, slamming through his chest and taking a piece of his back on the way out. Petraeus fell to the ground, bleeding out of his mouth. He nearly died. We could have lost one of the most important and influential military leaders in generations to a mistake. To a professional misstep.

The best that Captain Johnson and Specialist Jones might have hoped for was a painless end to their military service. I asked LTC Fred Johnson about the story of his own soldier shooting David Petraeus, and I asked how it could be that Johnson was still in the military. Johnson looked me in the eye and said something like,

“Mike. You know what Petraeus did?”

“What?” I asked.

“He gave me a second chance.”

Fred Johnson actually got picked up for promotion early.

“But what happened to the young soldier?” I asked, thinking surely there had to be a consequence. Conventional wisdom stipulates that for balance to be restored after accidentally shooting and nearly killing a superior officer, a sacrifice of some magnitude is necessary. A soldier just can’t shoot a commander in the chest and walk away. There is no such thing as an “accidental discharge.” Unplanned bullet launches are called “negligent discharges.” As in negligent homicide.

LTC Johnson answered something like, “Mike, you won’t believe how Jones was punished. Petraeus sent Jones to Ranger School.”

I couldn’t believe my ears! That’s a punishment that a lot of young soldiers dream about, even though Ranger School is a very difficult course. But after thinking on it awhile, I realized it probably explains why LTC Johnson sometimes says, “I believe in second chances.”

Fred Johnson said it just the other day. He said it to me, “When someone gives you a second chance, you should pass it along.”

Such are the principles of the General the Democrats are preparing to Bork. Gen. Patraeus is already being derided as "the new Jesus." The truth is: Gen. Patraeus is the very best the U.S. Army has to offer. In this case, especially, that is very good indeed.

Link: David Patraeus must be destroyed

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Melina Salazar's Merry Christmas

Courtesy of WWII veteran Walter "Buck" Swords. AP:
Fri Dec 28, 8:22 PM ET

BROWNSVILLE, Texas - For nearly seven years Melina Salazar did her best to put on a smile and tend to the every need of her most loyal and cantankerous customer.

She made sure his food was as hot as he wanted, even if it meant he burned his mouth. And she smiled through his demands and curses. The 89-year-old Walter "Buck" Swords obviously appreciated it, leaving the waitress $50,000 and a 2000 Buick when he died.

"I still can't believe it," the Luby's cafeteria employee told Harlingen television station KGBT-TV in an interview during which she described Swords as "kind of mean."

Swords, a World War II veteran, died in July. But Salazar learned just a few days before Christmas that he had left her the money and car.
Video interview with Melina, conducted at her Luby's restaurant.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Better than most offerings at modern art museums

I say this is legitimate artistic comment about personal presentation. h/t 1, 2

I'm off to visit family, and might not blog again until the New Year. Since the artist above is wearing festive Christmas green, this will be my official Merry Christmas post...
Merry Christmas!!
and much love.

The top half of the Wisconsin State Christmas tree, displayed in the rotunda of one of the most beautiful state capitol buildings in America, circa 2004. The bottom half of the tree is hidden by the second floor walkway. I'm saying that's 35 feet of tree, from the first floor to tip top. Photo by Ann Althouse. More photos of the tree and the beautiful Wisconsin State Capitol. In 2004 this was a "Holiday Tree." Beginning in 2006, some legislators introduced legislation to henceforth call it a "Christmas Tree." The controversy carried into this year, when an atheist Wisconsin legislator famously announced:
"The people of Wisconsin do not have the right to have a 'Christmas' anything!"

Why is the sky blue?

The sunlit sky appears blue because air scatters short-wavelength light more than longer wavelengths. Since blue light is at the short wavelength end of the visible spectrum, it is more strongly scattered in the atmosphere than long wavelength red light. The result is that the human eye perceives blue when looking toward parts of the sky other than the sun.[1]

Near sunrise and sunset, most of the light we see comes in nearly tangent to the Earth's surface, so that the light's path through the atmosphere is so long that much of the blue and even yellow light is scattered out, leaving the sun rays and the clouds it illuminates red.
Why are Dallas Cowboys fans blue?

` breaks down succubus vs. Carrie Underwood

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Tony Romo and Yoko Ono

There's a song somewhere in that title.
Without Yoko in attendance: 12-1.
With Yoko in attendance: 0-1.
13 for 36.
3 interceptions.
Total offensive output: 2 FGs.
Yoko Ono screwed up four guys in a band.
This chick is gonna Yoko an entire NFL franchise.
Tony Romo has outstanding mental and emotional make-up. On and off the field, he's exactly what you want. He has natural leadership qualities. To think of athletes with better mentality, and better poise, you start thinking of people like Magic Johnson and Joe Montana.
I thought Tony Romo was bulletproof. I thought his down-to-earth upbringing, his long struggle to make it to the top, and his mid twenties maturity would save him from suffering much negative impact from fame and publicity. Tony's teen-aged dream girl was probably the only thing in life which could have screwed him up. She is Kryptonite with a 95 IQ. I can't believe it's happened. There she stands, a nightmare come to life: blond from a bottle, breasts from a plastic surgeon, and the spirit-of-the-trailer-park giveaway detail: too much eyeliner and eyeshadow. I doubt Tony can even see what she looks like. All he can see is what he dreamed of at age 16.
The worst part is she is a succubus. She will introduce whining and negative thinking into Tony's life. He doesn't need that. He needs down-to-earth. He needs his natural, positive qualities reinforced in his home. He doesn't need a succubus draining his natural leadership qualities from him. This is disaster.
In Western medieval legend, a succubus ... is a demon who takes the form of a beautiful woman to seduce men (especially monks) in dreams to have sexual intercourse. They draw energy from the men to sustain themselves, often until the point of exhaustion or death of the victim.
Tony Romo is doomed.
Since the Cowboys are now Yoko'd into having no shot, I hope Brett Favre and the Packers can make it to the Super Bowl.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Dophins Win!

Wide receiver Greg Camarillo breaks away for the game winning touchdown in overtime.

I'm really happy for those guys.

I've never seen so many hugs. Players hugged. Fans hugged.
It was great to watch.

Wayne Huizenga cried.

Aqsa Parvez and Western denial, Part 2

(Part 1, edited and expanded)

I continue to suspect Aqsa Parvez was murdered in an honor killing. However, due to reports now appearing in Canadian media, I am not as confident of the circumstances of her death as I was on Thursday.

Toronto Star:

Following her death, friends from Applewood Heights Secondary School spoke up about Parvez's desire to fit in at school, her clashes with her father over traditional Muslim values and those of her school mates and over what she would or would not wear, including the hair-covering hijab.

Outgoing and rebellious, Parvez wanted to wear Western-style clothing, contrary, her friends say, to her father’s wishes. She had started to take off her hijab on the bus en route to school and put it back on in the afternoons.

Parvez fled from home twice in the past few months. The first time she went to a shelter. It was well known among her friends that a letter from her family describing how her parents couldn’t sleep without her home, and informing her she wouldn’t have to wear the hijab, persuaded her to return home. However, she ran away a second time weeks after.

The National Post:

Aqsa did not have a boyfriend, said Ms. Tahir, who expressed dismay at the "rumours" in the press, including speculation that it was conflict over wearing the hijab that triggered the alleged murder.

The Tahirs did not know of any dispute over Aqsa wearing a hijab and said that the older Parvez sisters did not always wear the head scarf.
CTV News:

But the Muslim leaders admitted a child who didn't wear the hijab could bring shame to a family, and the parents could be viewed as failures in the community.
I do hope the truth about Aqsa's murder will come to light - whatever that truth is. It's tremendously disrespectful to have falsehoods about her murder be disseminated.

We are seeing goal posts be moved vis a vis the definition of "honor killing." The left vs. right friction, over defining the terms of Aqsa's murder, is kind of silly. I say that even though I wrote this post detailing why the left is in psychological denial. The friction is silly because the truth - when it is known - will settle nothing between left and right.

Let's say, for argument sake, Muhammad Parvez acted due to mental illness, and religion was not a factor in any way. That wouldn't change the underlying argument between left and right:
Is fundamentalist Islam evil, or not?

Conversely, let's say Mr. Parvez gives a national television interview in which he admits he committed an honor killing. Let's say he gives all kinds of detail about why he believes Aqsa's death was religiously justified. Let's say Mr. Parvez says his entire Pakistani community agree with his opinions. What will happen then?

The PC left will fantasize anyway. They will say Mr. Parvez is a disturbed lone wolf, a liar, mentally ill, bribed, intimidated, a self-hating Muslim, on medication, suffering from a brain tumor, speaking while suffering a silent seizure, and covering up for the real killer(who had no religious motivation). They will deny to themselves that millions of Muslims agree with Mr. Parvez' opinions. Unless a leftist is courageous enough to disavow his PC beliefs, and to thus tear down the walls protecting his own self-image, his only remaining option is to fantasize and deny truth. PC doctrine cannot withstand scrutiny. Fantasy and denial are the only things which allow PC doctrine to survive.

Whatever motivated Muhammad Parvez, Aqsa's death is a tragedy. Pain is everywhere. I feel it.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

A fascinating read

The most interesting thing I've read lately. Via Jules Crittendon:

Over the last few weeks, Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, one of the least public yet most important figures in the global jihad movement, has published a long-awaited new work, Wathiqat Tarshid Al-’Aml Al-Jihadi fi Misr w’Al-’Alam (”Document of Right Guidance for Jihad Activity in Egypt and the World”), in which he calls for a stop to jihad activities in the West and also to those against the ruling regimes in Muslim countries. The new book, which Imam wrote while serving a life sentence in Egypt, was published in serial form in two Arab dailies, the Kuwaiti Al-Jarida and the Egyptian Al-Masri Al-Yawm, and has been the subject of extensive discussion and polemic among Islamists and observers of Islamist movements.
The book has generated such interest due to its author’s standing and importance among radical Islamists.
His 1988 book on the laws of jihad, Al-’Umda fi I’dad Al-’Udda (”The Essentials of Making Ready [for Jihad]”),was used as a jihad manual in Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. [2] In addition, Sayyed Imam is one of Ayman Al-Zawahiri’s oldest associates.
Q: “What is your evaluation of the events of September [11], 2001?”

Sayyed Imam: “It was a catastrophe for the Muslims. [Al-Qaeda] ignited strife that found its way into every home, and they were the cause of the imprisonment of thousands of Muslims in the prisons of various countries. They caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims - Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others. The Taliban’s Islamic Emirate was destroyed, and Al-Qaeda was destroyed. They were the direct cause of the American occupation of Afghanistan and other heavy losses which there is not enough time to mention here. They bear the responsibility for all of this.
People hate America, and the Islamist movements feel the hatred and the impotence, and they applaud anyone who locks horns with America, whether it’s bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, or Saddam. Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of your people?… That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11.
Click either link for much more very good stuff. What is most fascinating is the insight into the reasoning of a serious Jihadi leader. For example, Sayyed Imam judges that the 9/11 attackers went to hell b/c they used false visas, thus putting themselves under the protection of the U.S. government, then attacked the very country whose protection they had sought out under the visa system. Sayyed Imam does not judge the 9/11 attacks, in and of themselves, to have sent the attackers to hell. Nor does he judge them for breaking U.S. law via using false visas. However, when they sought U.S. protection under their false visas, then attacked the nation which was protecting them, they doomed their souls.

Less fascinating, yet important to note: Sayyed Imam is saying (between the lines) America's aggressive military response is a reason we haven't been hit with another big attack in North America. I've wondered: why no follow up big attacks? There are certain types of attacks which we really cannot stop (except occasionally). Sayyed Iman's answer reads like a Republican campaign commercial:
What good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of your people?
Those sentences could not validate George Bush' military strategy any more strongly. The President may as well take a victory lap.

Our defense against Jihad is a type of mutually assured destruction defense. If you attack us: we do not target a government with a nuke, as in the Cold War. Instead: we gradually destroy your jihadi network; we destroy your long sought grip on a host nation (Afghanistan); and - via implementing democracy - we tempt the people away from fundamentalist Islam (Sharia law). If you hit us with a big attack, be assured we will destroy the things you hold dear.

Note something else: Sayyed Imam does not say
Thank goodness our enemy killed a thousand of our people, because that enabled us to recruit ten thousand to replace them.

Sayyed Imam apparently does not believe in an unlimited, exponentially growing number of replacement jihadis. He apparently believes the world population of Jihadis has a finite limit - at least in the short term. He apparently believes the invincible Jihadi hydra: cut off one head and five more appear - is only a fantasy.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Watching Cousin Phil coach 4th grade basketball

Nothing could be more frustrating than coaching 4th grade basketball.

Phil's team lost: 31-20.

During the entire game, Phil's wife Melanie stood beside the bench, calculating and recalculating minutes played, so that all 8 players would play approx. the same number of minutes. This is a classic tableau of America in year 2007. If Norman Rockwell were alive, he would paint Phil coaching, and Melanie standing six feet from Phil, assiduously calculating player minutes.

With 16 seconds remaining the clock, down by 11, Phil three times reminded his team: "There are only 16 seconds left." And, this was good coaching. His players need practice at being aware of the clock.

With 10 seconds left, up by 11, the opposition coach called time-out so he could diagram an inbounds play, and thus give his team opportunity to practice it during the last 10 seconds of the game. Which, again, is just good coaching. The best practice your team ever gets, and the most improvement they ever make, always happen during actual games.

Phil committed one rookie coaching error: in the post-game huddle, Phil allowed a mother to distribute drinks to the players. This meant the players, for the remaining 60 seconds of the team huddle, were thinking of nothing except the blue Power-Ades they played with in their hands. A veteran coach will never allow any parent to get anywhere near a team huddle, for any reason. If the building is on fire, evacuation can wait until the brief team huddle concludes. Therefore: BACK AWAY FROM MY HUDDLE!

Phil is actually too nice to say this to a parent. He needs an assistant coach/enforcer whose main job is backing parents away - somewhat as a lion-tamer cracks his whip and moves lions where he wants them:


"Back away! Heeyaah! Back!

You! Freeze!

DO ... NOT ... OPEN

the ice chest."

Friday, December 14, 2007

To Catch A Thief

I watched "To Catch A Thief" this evening.

There is a scene in which Grace Kelly drives herself and Cary Grant, very fast, down a winding European mountain road. The Mediterranean Sea looms beautifully in the distance. The mountain road is full of hairpin curves. It is a dangerous road. I was struck by the irony that Grace Kelly died, in an auto crash, while being driven down a similar road.

In the commentary after the movie, I learned Princess Grace died on the exact same road which was pictured in the movie.

I wish Grace Kelly was still with us.

In "To Catch A Theif", Grace Kelly's mother laments that her daughter is overly reserved and proper. The mother says:
"I never should have sent her to finishing school. I think it finished her."

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Aqsa Parvez and Western denial

(This post edited and expanded. Part 2 is here.)

These are photos of Aqsa Parvez at age 16. The first is at the top of her MySpace page:

She was full of life. Now she is a hard and cold corpse. She never saw 17.

Aqsa, living in Canada, refused to wear a hijab to school. She would take her hijab off on the bus to school, then put it back on, in the school bathroom, before returning home.

Aksa's Pakistani father strangled her. Honor killing. She had to be killed in order to maintain the family's honor. Muhammad Parvez then called 911, and informed them he had just killed his daughter.

And it's as simple as that: honor killing. Honor killings happen multiple times every year, wherever fundamentalist Islam mixes with backward tribal culture. Wikipedia:

"The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor-killing victims may be as high as 5,000 women."
Palestinians are known to douse their daughters/sisters/sisters-in-law in gasoline, then light them on fire:

“I’m going to take care of you,” were the brother-in law’s soothing words before he doused Souad with gasoline and set her aflame.

Ninety percent of Souad’s body was burned and she was left to die in a local hospital – where the staff refused to treat her, for they understood all too well that it was important for this charmuta to die. Souad’s mother showed up to the hospital as the protagonist in the final act, hoping to finish off what her son-in-law had started. In her unrivalled motherly love, she brought a glass of poison to her daughter’s lips, commanding her to drink. But the entrance of a doctor into the hospital room interfered with the intended script and Souad’s life was spared.

By the miraculous and courageous intervention of a Swiss-based humanitarian worker (“Jacqueline”), Souad survived and was flown to Europe -- where she lives today under a secret identity. If her family discovered that she were alive and discerned her new whereabouts, they would still come to murder to her.
Except, in the minds of politically correct Westerners, Aqsa Parvez' death cannot be an honor killing.


If fundamentalist Islam influenced Muhammad Parvez' decision to strangle his daughter, then politically correct observers will be forced to recognize fundamentalist Islam as a malevolent force. This amounts to willfully discriminating about a religion. This must not be done! Discrimination is bad! Intellectual discrimination will lay waste to every multiculti value the PC have based their lives upon. In order to justify their worldview (no religion is better or worse than any other religion), they need an alternative explanation for Muhammad Parvez' action.

Similarly, if backward tribal culture influenced Muhammad Parvez' decision to strangle his daughter, the PCs will have to acknowledge a cultural evil. Horrors! PC doctrine stipulates that problems in the world are not caused by cultural evil, but rather by righteousness - by the very act of judging. No one has the right to think about what is good or bad about cultures. No culture is better or worse than any other culture. The politically correct demand - in the name of all they hold holy - that we speak no more about such matters. After all, we are not heathen (sniff).

Therefore, PC Westerners are torturing logic to conjure up an alternative explanation for Muhammad Parvez having strangled his daughter. They've rationalized and wrestled up their best group of alternative possibilities. They've concentrated on everything except the real reason: honor killing.

I give you Exhibit A: The Gazette (Montreal), in the close of an editorial:
Murdering daughters is no more an Islamic value than murdering estranged wives is a Western one.
Murdering daughters is not an Islamic value. Yet, it is a value which large numbers of fundamentalist Muslims have taken as their own. Jihad Watch:

the divine sanction given to the beating of disobedient women (Qur'an 4:34) has created a culture in which such abuse is accepted as normal. [Muslims] could call for a searching reevaluation of the meaning and continued relevance of Qur'an 4:34, and call in no uncertain terms for Muslims to reject definitively its literal meaning, now and for all time to come. They could acknowledge the prevalence of honor killing in Islamic culture, which has no sanction as such in Islamic theology but nonetheless enjoys enough Islamic approval that the Jordanian Parliament a few years ago rejected on Islamic grounds attempts to stiffen penalties for it.
Photo: Jordanian women protest the Jordanian Parliament's refusal to provide stiffer penalties against honor killings.

The Gazette editors drew a parallel between Muslims murdering daughters and non-Muslims murdering estranged wives. The Gazette editors might note fundamentalist Muslim husbands kill their wives - over shaming of the family - at a rate which is many orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which Catholics, for instance, murder their estranged wives. And I know that without even looking it up. Back to The Gazette editors' apologia:

Muhammed Parvez might have been fighting a losing battle trying to make Aqsa wear a hijab, but that hardly sets him apart. Few are the fathers, of any faith or none, who have not clashed with their adolescent daughters
It's just a teenager thing! Don't you see? It's as normal as... um... well... lemme get back to you.

That such clashes can sometimes lead to violence and even murder is also not a phenomenon peculiar to Muslim families,
The Gazette editors needed more math in school. The editors are throwing significantly different ratios of occurrence into the same basket. Anyone with sense knows that - also without even looking it up.

as anyone who reads newspapers attentively can tell you.
I read newspapers a-t-t-e-n-t-i-v-e-l-y (you condescending, lock-step snivelers), and I say this to your implication: BULLSHIT.

But once again, some people have been too eager to jump aboard the anti-Muslim bandwagon. To judge a faith and a culture on this one squalid incident is absurd.
And there it is, right on cue: the politically correct accusation of religious bigotry, followed closely by the politically correct assertion: "To judge a faith and a culture ... is absurd." I rest my case. And, I promise, I didn't read Exhibit A until after I had already written the topmost paragraphs about refusal to judge religions and cultures. I didn't need to read Exhibit A to understand the dilemma of the multiculti brigades.

The editors' phrase "on this one squalid incident" is unserious window dressing. The lock-step snivelers can pretend they would publicly judge Islamists in the right circumstances, yet they are actually afraid to judge any group which might rise up and do violence to them. For evidence, I point to the Muhammad cartoons. But I don't point to any Muhammad cartoons in The Gazette, because the cartoons did not appear there. That's something else I know without even looking it up.

Also, hewing to a strict debate point: Exactly who is judging fundamentalist Islam based on one incident? Hey, editors: Google. "Islamic honor killings" yields 268,000 links.

Oh, and I gotcha "absurd" right here, you condescending lock-steppettes. Absurd is failing to adjudge fundamentalist Islam as evil.

Fantasy scenarios insult the life of Aqsa Parvez. Truth respects her life. Aqsa Parvez was murdered in a fundamentalist Islamist honor killing (with maybe some tribal values thrown in).

Here's a WaPo headline, on page A23, about the honor killing:
"Canadian Teen Dies; Father Is Charged."
Does that headline give you a good feel for the story?

Michelle Malkin:
Five Feet of Fury [awesome blog name] and Halls of Macadamia [ditto] spotlight the press quoting spin doctor Mohamed Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress, claiming it was a “teenager issue.”
“I don’t want the public to think that this is really an Islamic issue or an immigrant issue,” said Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress. “It is a teenager issue.”
Blood pressure rising yet?

Keep reading.

Jihad Watch catches the National Post in the act with this quote:
“The strangulation death of Ms. Parvez was the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian society and is blind to colour or creed.”
The only ones blinded here are the dhimmi journalists wielding the whitewash brush over Aqsa Parvez’s dead body.


"A teenager issue"?! This Islamist apologist for honor-killing is a living representative of evil.

"The result of domestic violence"? Does the writer really believe a Canadian-bred culture of domestic violence had a larger influence on Muhammad Parvez than did his fundamentalism or his tribalism?

People with open eyes need to stand up for Aqsa by speaking truth. It is disrespectful to deny and lie about the cause of her death. Doing so truly is, in Michelle Malkin's words, "wielding the whitewash brush over Aqsa Parvez's dead body."


Now comes my cyberspace friend, the often lucid (but not this time) Canadian citizen Skippy Stalin:

The media and the blogosphere is desperate to make this about the evils of Islam. It isn't.
"Desperate"? Skippy is accusing some bloggers (possibly me) of being over-eager to be right (about a misguided understanding of Islam). Skippy is bestowing a gift. He's reminding us to seek truth, as opposed to self-aggrandizement.
If anything, the lonely death of Aqsa Parvez is about the perversion of religion.
It's about the perversion of one particular religion. For example: Protestant Christianity does not pervert, in large clumps of Protestants, to accepting the murder of various female family members.
To one degree or another, all monotheist religions drive certain of their followers to murder and, in certain circumstances, religious authorities condone and celebrate this.
Skippy's attempted parallel is invalid:

Large groups of Muslims who believe in murdering family members

are not equivalent to:

Individuals of other religions who murder, plus one and off religious cults who murder.

When Skippy writes a post about monotheistic religions driving their followers to murder, I will respond with a post about how living without God does the same. Skippy's premise: religion is bad because it leads to murder, is suspect. I'm sure it's the first time, ever, that a Skippy premise has been suspect.
Well, not in Canada. Not anymore.
Believe whatever you want, but your rights end at the point of violence.

So tolerant of religious expression is Canada that it has long refused to step in when religious figures advocate violence, although that is a clear violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Thank you for pointing directly at the moral cowardice of Canadian authorities. That Jewish thing applies (misquoting from memory): When you are kind to the cruel you are cruel to the kind.
You should not be permitted promote the beating of children or acts of war against other ethnic or religious groups and hide behind your right to free expression in this country any longer.
Tell it Skippy! Solidarity forever!
Furthermore, it is well past time that the criminal and immigration law be brought to bear on this.

Tell it Skippy! Tell it brother! Bravo for standing on the morally righteous side of Canadian law. In about 2 seconds, you'll be accused of being secretly prejudiced against Muslims. Don't worry about it. When ad hominem is launched at you from behind castle walls, don't even flinch. Let it splash where it may. Wear it as a badge of honor.

May God watch over Aqsa Parvez' soul. I feel sick over her murder. Let us tell the truth about why it happened.

More good advertising: Israel - the Holy Land

content warning, for language

Wednesday, December 12, 2007




Yesterday, writing fast in a comments section, I twice wrote "passivist" into sentences.

Ugh. I misconstrued the root word. I am officially embarrassed.


and it gets cooler as it goes along.

This video touches on a couple of technical aspects.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Update: Freedom's Watch NBC Ad

NBC has reversed their original decision. NBC will now accept Freedoms Watch money, and will now run the Freedoms Watch "Thank you" ad.

Media barely notice spectacular bravery in Colorado

This is Jeanne Assam. Get a sense of her. She is the heroine of the Colorado shootings.

At the moment of this photo, Ms. Assam has not slept for at least a day. Study Ms. Assam's features. Sense what is behind her eyes. Jeanne Assam is not a helpless victim.

Video of Ms. Assam speaking to the media.

The Colorado church shootings do not conform to the media's preferred worldview, insofar as a gun + refusal to cower + prayer played big roles in stopping the killer.

And not just any gun, but a gun wielded by Jeanne Assam, thus showing women do not have to be helpless victims. 

And not just any prayer, but devout prayer to the Holy Spirit. Ms. Assam prayed to the Holy Spirit to be with her. She then walked directly towards the shooter, yelling "Surrender!", firing 12 pistol shots as she moved forward. She was awesomely outgunned by a "cheap foreign" (SKS?) automatic rifle. She walked straight in, firing. She said: "My hands didn't even shake."

A Vietnam veteran, who had rushed to the chapel to see what he could do to help, witnessed Ms. Assam's assault. He said her action "was the bravest thing I've ever seen." 

Since a gun was part of saving the day; and since a woman who refused to be a helpless victim saved the day; and since prayer to the Holy Spirit saved the day; the media is not covering the event with the wall to wall coverage I would expect. Some of this will come, surely, in ensuing days. But, Ms. Assam stopped the shooter just after noon-time on Sunday. The media spectacular should've already hit on Sunday night and on Monday. It did not.

If this story had neatly conformed to the media's preferred news templates: guns used only for bad purpose; helpless victims in a cruel world - what can any of us do(?); small-minded Christianity fueling the shooter's rage ... then this story would be much larger all across the nation. Geraldo and Greta would be on site. Editorial writers would be burning up keyboards in favor of gun control + we are all helpless victims + Christianity is bad.

Instead, this story has Christian faith overcoming evil intent. This story has a woman refusing to be a victim, and picking up a gun in response to a threat, and possibly saving scores of people in the process.

The media hate a story where God, guns, and gumption are the heroes. Media non-reponse is a microcosm of media modus operandi: stories either they fit the media's preferred worldview, or the stories are minimized or ignored.

Two years ago, in Tennessee (as best I remember), a gunman with obvious bad intent carried a gun towards a university classroom building. Another student ran to his car, got his own gun, then ran back to the campus building and stopped the gunman before anyone was killed. Have you ever heard of that story? It didn't fit the media's gun-control worldview.

Guns stop a massive number of attempted crimes every year. You hear much about those stories? They don't fit the media-preferred template. 

I don't think the media can ignore Ms. Assam much longer - for she is young and blond. She will make Leno and Letterman and Larry King and Oprah and Ellen. There will be a book and a Lifetime movie. But this will mainly occur because Ms. Assam's youth and blond hair will drag the media - kicking and screaming, initially - into covering the story. Soon enough, the media will warm to the ratings potential she represents.

Slight shift of subject:
Ms. Assam attacked into an ambush, firing all the way. Whether she knew it or not, that is a solid military tactic. Ambushers expect their victims to flee. They do not expect an attack directly into their position. Ms. Assam's attack reminds that, for the last four years, when our soldiers in Iraq have been ambushed, they've turned their vehicles directly towards the ambushing fire, and they have attacked directly into the ambushes. Charging straight into an ambush requires tremendous, incredible courage - yet our military has done it again and again in Iraq. And again. Amazing courage and heroism. As I commend the Colorado heroine, with all the commendation I can muster, I want to also remember our brave military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, also, know courage. Salute - to all of you!

Final shift of subject:
I've read some personal safety "expert" advice (for whatever it's worth), pointing out that it is not necessarily the best course to be passive when being attacked or mugged. Every situation is unique. If you are attacked, you will have to make your call, for that situation, about the course of action which gives the best odds of survival. Just know that being passive is not the automatic best course of action. We've been coached, for decades, by Hollywood, et al, that we should be always be passive in such situation. Certainly we should sometimes be passive. Yet, according to what I have read, passive can easily be the worst, most life-threatening course of action. Passive is the best course of action maybe half the time. If you are attacked, you are often dealing with psychopathic, substance-altered, angry and desperate persons. Your attacker's adrenaline is up. Your attacker is not thinking clearly and calmly. Your attacker may not be interested in appreciating your gift of passivity.

There's especially one situation the self-defense people say you should never be passive about: never, ever allow yourself to be forced, at gunpoint, into a vehicle in order to be transferred somewhere else. Never do this. If a mugger wants to take you somewhere else, it is for the purpose of doing something bad to you at the other location.

In this situation, verbally refuse - and do so with defiant attitude. If you have to: fight, get shot, do what you must, but take your chances where you stand - because those are the best odds you are going to get. It doesn't matter if your attempted abductor is acting nice and reasonable as he tries to convince you to passively be abducted. If he is trying to abduct you, it is only for bad purpose. Your odds of survival only go down, down, down in a transfer of location scenario.

Larry King conducts the most incompetent, cringe-inducing interview I have ever seen. And that's saying a lot.

Ms. Assam's story is about faith and courage. Larry King has no clue. He has no sense of what Christian faith is, and it appears he has no sense of what courage is. He asks questions: How did it feel [to kill the shooter]? and I guess your life is changed forever[by the trauma of the shooting]? which are designed to allow Ms. Assam to somehow play the victim on national television, aka poor pitiful me. Ms. Assam doesn't know how to respond, because she is not a victim. Never, not for one moment since she first heard shots, has Ms. Assam considered herself a victim in this matter.

Larry King represents the worldwide leftist mindset in which being a victim is noble. In this way of thinking, victim status is always sought after - for the perceived nobility it confers on the victim.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Honor and Accomplishment, Part I

There is no honor in defeating an unworthy opponent.

Who gets to say whether or not our opponents are worthy?

We do.

In Vietnam, some American soldiers viewed the Vietnamese as unworthy beings and opponents. This sometimes contributed to post war psychological difficulty. If your opponent is unworthy, there is no honor for you - neither in victory nor in defeat. Because they felt little honor resulted from their actions, such soldiers were damaged.

The Americans who reintegrated into society most successfully tended to recognize their Vietnamese opponents' humanity. These Americans honored the Vietnamese as tough and resourceful fighters. For these Americans, there was honor in their military accomplishments in Vietnam.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

NBC refused to run this ad

due to the final 5 seconds of it's 30 second run time. The entire ad:

Alan Wurtzel, NBC's Head of Standards and Practices:
“We have a policy that prohibits acceptance of advertising that deals with issues of public controversy ... We asked [Freedoms Watch] to eliminate a URL address where a person is asked to contact elected officials and told not to cut and run on the war on terror.”
The final seconds of the commercial have this message on screen:
To learn how you can thank our troops,
Freedoms Watch says they need to put up their URL so viewers can find one of twenty linked web sites which enable Americans to send email, cards, and gifts to troops.

Here's a link to Freedoms Watch' homepage. Take 15 seconds and see if you think the homepage is controversial.

Friday, December 07, 2007


Political interest groups + simple video editing software + You Tube =
greatest political advertising of all time!

More genius, from

Swift Kids For Truth has other fun stuff on the linked website. I like a video called "Courage", which has this dialogue(always spoken by the Swift Kids):

9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11

Rudy Giuliani says 9/11 a lot, a real lot.

Saying 9/11, is important.

No Democrat has the guts to stand up and say 9/11 a lot.

I never heard Barack Obama say 9/11 once.

John Edwards? Never heard him say it.

I guess they don't care about saying 9/11.

9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11

It's about time ... that somebody stood up and said 9/11 ... a lot.

THAT is some good campaigning. There's some very professional polling behind that kiddie-spoken dialogue. "Courage" gets at the core difference in the approach to terrorism among the parties, just as the best commercial from the 2004 Campaign got at the core difference then. I can still hear the woman's voiceover: "and weakness attracts those who would do America harm." A tremendous commercial for that campaign year.

Also, I totally love Rob Reiner in this commercial for Hillary. Note the sexual overtones in the very last girl, who yells: "Yes". Which, sex appeal is only good salemanship. It just ... struck me as EXTREMELY overt. But maybe that's just me.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

More Cowboys uniform dish

Good stuff, from my brother in Denham Springs, LA, who is in the football equipment and uniform business. Thanks, bro(!):
In Super Bowl V, both the Colts and the Cowboys had their uniforms stolen the week of the game...forcing both teams to have to use their away jerseys. Plus, the navy jersey jinx was already in place before the Super Bowl.

The Cowboys helmet color, now referred to as "Cowboys Blue" is a mixture of Carolina Blue - or, more specifically: Columbia Blue and Raider Silver. In those days, you had to apply each coat separately. These days the paint is blended. Tex Schramm developed the concoction cocktail because it looked better through television lenses, was more versatile, and was unique.

Kansas State uses Cowboys Blue on their helmets, and think how good it looks - even with purple accent - on television. Remember, Tex Schramm was a television marketing executive [Greg's note: and thus understood the television money available to the NFL], and his decisions were always based on the game being more fan friendly for television viewers.

Tex Schramm, and long time equipment mgr. Buck Buchannon, were Russell Athletic men - though at that time it was called Russell Southern. In your favorite picture, Tony Hill is in a Russell jersey. Russell's jersey colors are unique to them. Russell created unique color shades, and other manufacturer could not duplicate Russell's colors. When you sell a school a full set of uniforms, every year the school either sells their torn jerseys, or maybe gives the seniors their own jerseys. Russell's unique colors insure that their competition cannot fill a partial order to replace only the old, torn jerseys of the school, because the partial order of new jerseys would not match the color of the old jerseys. When I sold Riddell against Russell, my only hope was that the school had lots of sr's, and went deep into the playoffs, and tore up lots of jerseys, and maybe then I could sell them a complete set of new jerseys.

Russell's colors are definitely the prettiest, and are also unique. Examples are Univ. of Kansas blue, and Washington State crimson.
In the late 70's, with the Cowboys as Russell's bell cow, Tex Schramm sat down to develop a better navy game set. In the 50's, basketball uniforms were often shiny, reflective polyester fabric. Schramm figured such reflective fabric would be better for tv.

His problem was the 50's era reflective fabric did not stretch. Russell developed Antron, which was a shiny polyester which did stretch, which is what was needed for football pants. Vern Lundquist called the Cowboys' shiny pants: "Disco pants."
Greg's note: here's a link to the only picture I can find of the dark bright jerseys + shiny disco pants. The football card site would not allow me to import the picture to the blog.
For the next 10 years, game pants were made with (coaches speak): "shiny front, and regular back" until the cost and trademark exclusivity was finished. Today, 90% of all game pants are full Antron, front and back. The problem for Tex Schramm was color options. His Columbia Blue wasn't available in Antron. Thus, Schramm had to utilize silver if he wanted to continue being innovative.

Also at that time, Schramm and Buchannon decided to change the helmet stripes from royal to navy, to match the jerseys. I believe this may have been in '77. The change to navy helmet stripes wasn't as drastic for fans to accept, as it came after the one bi-centennial year of one royal and one red helmet stripe.
Complicating the helmet stripe issue were the helmets themselves. Staubach wore the same helmet - Bill Kelley's helmet - which Singletary broke 20+ of while at Baylor. Staubach later wore a Maxpro Super Pro helmet which had a clear coat finish on the outside, with the paint inside of the helmets. Royal stripes on Bill Kelley helmets looked navy on tv.
Greg's notes: and thus may have influenced the decision to go to navy stripes on all of the team helmets, so as to conform the entire team with the most visible star's helmet.

The superior cosmetics of the navy helmet stripe are a lesson for anyone who cares to look: an official color scheme ought not prevent a team from going to a superior look. Tex Schramm was also ahead of his time in this area, as we can see by modern teams' integration of colors which are not in their official scheme. Black, anyone? Anyone? Univ. of Tennessee girls basketball: turquoise? Newly created teams now typically have several colors in their "official" scheme.

A second lesson: How a helmet is perceived on television, and from a distant stadium seat, is more important than how a helmet is perceived up close. The navy helmet stripe utilizes the same principle as a theater performer who wears pancake make-up. Back to bro:
Jerry Jones signed the multi million $ deal with Nike. Nike used multiple manufacturers - nothing was made at the same locations, and there are different color lots. Nike uniforms are all over the place. Also, JJones moved away from royals and columbia blue's of Tex. Schramm, to put his stamp on his boys with navy's and more traditional silvers.
Greg's notes: Here's a link to video of Darrell Green chasing down Tony Dorsett, in 1983, on MNF. Tony is wearing the Tex Schramm dark uniform + disco pants for the first time. Last month, ABC/ESPN named this one of the all-time MNF games. Dallas did get the last laugh, after a big comeback netted a 31-30 victory.

I would like to see an interviewer ask Staubach why he wore the Kelley helmet. There's a chance Staubach wore it simply b/c he liked the look: i.e. the Kelley helmet, on his head and body, combined with his body language on the field, created the swashbuckling and heroic look Roger Staubach ought to have. If this were true, I don't fault Staubach. Staubach had no way to know of possible (unproven) additional neurologic danger, and the Kelley helmet did look excellent on him.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

ESPN's Paul Lukas studies Dallas Cowboys uniforms

more thoroughly than anyone ever has. His article is heaven for nerdy Dallas Cowboys fans (like me):


The Cowboys always wear silver pants, right? Right -- sort of. The team actually has two different sets of silver pants in its wardrobe: one with a greenish-blue tone and royal blue piping, which is worn with the white jerseys, and a more conventional silver version with navy piping, which is worn with the club's seldom-seen blue jerseys. No vaguely reasonable explanation for this has ever been proffered. Not only that, the Dallas helmet doesn't match either of the pants' hues, meaning the Cowboys actually use three shades of silver.

Uniqueness Factor: Very high. Some teams occasionally have trouble matching their helmet color to their jersey or pants, because fabric dyes work differently than plastic dyes. But the Cowboys don't have one intended version of silver that accidentally turns out three different ways -- they actually have three different silvers in their official color specs. No other NFL team has this kind of color confusion codified in its uniform design.

Annoyance Factor: Very high. Kindly pick one silver and stick with it for all applications, end of story.


The Cowboys' chromatic inconsistencies go beyond silver. When they wear their white jerseys (i.e., about 90 percent of the time), their socks, pants striping and uni numbers are royal, but the blue on their helmets is navy, so the two blues clash.

Uniqueness Factor: Very high. Other NFL teams understand the simple concept that your colors should match.

Annoyance Factor: Huge. Are these people colorblind, or what?

The most beautiful dark Cowboys uniform evah:

although, I do wonder if the jersey color has been enhanced in a photo studio. Regardless: you can see the jersey color is stunningly beautiful. Tex Schramm demanded to see shade after shade of blues. He then selected the brightest dark blue which was available. It's a Jerry Jones mistake that he did not retain the stunning shade for the dark jerseys.

You cannot tell in this photo, but Schramm also put the Cowboys into the sparkliest silver pants ever seen. The effect of the brightest dark blue jerseys + the sparkliest silver pants was uniformly spectacular. Makes me wistful.

Here's to you: Tex Schramm. Salute!

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

The Patriots are yuck

If it wasn't for good luck, the New England Patriots would've had no luck at all.

With the Patriots down by four, with under 90 seconds left, the Ravens stopped the Patriots on 4th down ... but a Ravens coach had called a sideline timeout in the moment before the snap.

Re-running the 4th down, the Ravens stopped the Patriots again ... but the Patriots right guard had jumped a moment before the snap, and the illegal procedure penalty nullified the play.

A couple of plays later, Brady's pass got tipped 15 or more feet into the air, then died perfectly between 4 converging Ravens - just barely out of everyone's reach. The tipped pass was begging to be intercepted. It picked the only midfield spot where it could've safely landed.


An envious Cain defeated Abel in combat. Yet, Cain had lost - due to the contents of his heart - before he had ever begun.

(speculation alert)

I suspect the Patriots will not win the Super Bowl. I suspect the soul-deadening effects of running up scores will catch up to them. Their spirits are not soaring.

Even the best teams are lost if they have no noble purpose. Noble purpose is everything. It calls to mens' souls.

Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods,


And for the tender mother who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses his baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus, that wrought the deed of shame?


Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul, with all the speed ye may!
I, with two more to help me, will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path, a thousand may well be stopped by three:
Now, who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?'


Then out spake Spurius Lartius; a Ramnian proud was he:
"Lo, I will stand at thy right hand and keep the bridge with thee."
And out spake strong Herminius; of Titian blood was he:
"I will abide on thy left side, and keep the bridge with thee."


"Horatius," quoth the Consul, "as thou sayest, so let it be."
And straight against that great array forth went the dauntless Three.

- from "Horatius", by Thomas Babington Macaulay

Everyone needs noble purpose. It doesn't have to be a huge thing. Taking care of your cat is a noble purpose.

What noble purpose will call the Patriots to stride forth onto the bridge? If my conjecture is correct, they have no noble purpose. And thus they have nothing. No eternal purpose. No goodness to surround and inspire them. Their foundation is rotten.

The Patriots' over-riding purpose is not to seek their bliss. Joy is a gift from God and to God. Seeking transcendent joy - and living it and exuding it - is an honorable cause. The Patriots do not play for this cause.

The Patriots' over-riding purpose is not to glorify God through their play. They do not seek excellence as an expression of love. Excellence in the most appropriate activity is a contribution to society. It is being all you can be - one cannot contribute more to eternity and humanity. Excellence is noble. The Patriots do not seek noble.

The Patriots seek victory, yet they ultimately seek to shame their opponents. They seek humiliation, even destruction. Theirs is a nasty and petty smallness. If my conjecture is correct: the trigger is Bill Belichick's envy of NFL franchises whose honor is seemingly unblemished.

Coach Belichick feels intolerable pain over his moral failure (video spying) being publicly revealed. This intolerable pain is characteristic of overt narcissism(my description below):
Bill Belichick does not define himself according to his understanding of what God created him to be. Instead, Belichick defines himself according to his understanding of other people's perception of him.

Belichick's insecurity drives him to work so that everyone, everywhere, at all times, is building up a shining monument of praise to Bill Belichick. He only feels extant when lighted by the glow which is stoked by his supplicants. If cut off from the glow, Belichick subconsciously feels he does not exist as a worthwhile entity. He can only have worthy existence when he can assure himself the supplicant-fed glow shines on.

An overt narcissist can barely ever relax. He must ensure the supplicants labor on. He must impress the supplicants, coerce the supplicants, and bully them when necessary. He is literally desperate for the glow to be fed, and to not extinguish. An overt narcissist has no interior principles and beliefs and resources to nourish him. He has only the glow which comes from outside. He must hustle, constantly, like the man keeping all the plates spinning on their sticks, in order to keep his supplicants feeding the glow.

An overt narcissist has difficulty identifying with other people. He sees other people mainly as tools for feeding the glowing reinforcement he craves. He looks, and he sees not individuals. He sees units who can do something for him, i.e. feed the glow. To an overt narcissist, everyone is a supplicant: you, me, people the narcissist barely knows, and people the narcissist doesn't know at all. To the narcissist, we all exist to feed the glow which is his only source of self-worth.

Bill Belichick's overt narcissism prevents his understanding that every person on Earth experiences consistent moral failure. Further: it prevents him understanding that wise persons understand this, and that wise persons forgive. If Belichick could understand this, he could then recognize his public moral failure only identifies him as human - and nothing more. His failure only means he is part of the brotherhood of man. Wise persons will forgive him. Sadly, Belichick's narcissistic insecurity blinds him.
Thus, ENVY. Belichick subconsciously fantasizes that ... if his team can succeed in destroying other, seemingly unblemished, NFL franchises ... then he will not have to bear the pain of his own public moral failure. Envy is a primal, subconscious fantasy of destruction. It is lowdown, nasty, and as old as humanity. Part of Belichick's fantasy is his failure to recognize all NFL persons experience instances of moral failure. From that lack of understanding, and from a failure to feel part of a brotherhood of imperfect humans, and from a failure to self-define according to who and what he believes he is created to be: from all that springs the subconscious fantasy of destruction.

The Patriots may yet win the Super Bowl, but they - and especially Belichick - lose more of their honor as every envy-driven week goes along. The Patriots are yuck. Even as they win and win and win, they lose and lose and lose.

Envy, psyche blogs, sports laboratories

Monday, December 03, 2007

McCain and a helpful lefty in the CNN debate

[I]f you read bin Laden, if you read Zawahiri, read what they say. They want to follow us home. [...] Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Phoenix, Arizona. This is a transcendent challenge of our time.
Helpful Lefty, you have 30 seconds...
If Bin Laden and Zawahiri follow us home, I think the climate near Phoenix would suit them best. They might hide near Sedona, or further north in the Grand Canyon area. If the National Parks Service oppressively profiles them as trespassers, they might try the New Mexico badlands.

If they follow us home, I would congratulate them for setting a good example by choosing a very carbon neutral lifestyle, both in Pakistan and in the U.S. I would encourage them to continue their good example, via purchasing carbon credits to offset their travel to the United States. Also: envision world peace, guys.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Revised debate link bumped to top

It's good to have unlimited time to reconsider how best to answer CNN debate questions! I've revised a bunch of original answers, and shortened and smoothed a bunch - and I'm proud of the post in it's current form: Link.

I revised the Bible inerrancy question (# 19) six different times! As much as that question had no place in the debate, I nevertheless found it's inclusion fascinating. In the moment, onstage, Romney was flummoxed by it. In the moment, I might've also been flummoxed. Giuliani was decently good in answering the question. Huckabee was better.

I first answered as if the question were:

What is the definition of "inspired word of God?"
The men who wrote the Bible were especially filled with God's inspiration - yet they remained fallible men who retained free will. God did not author exact words straight from His consciousness, through the human hand, and thence onto pages. Inspired yet fallible humans - with their free will intact - composed the Bible.
The Bible represents fallible, free-will exposition of inspired truth onto a page. It does not represent infallible, unfree, forced recording of absolute truth onto a page.
I threw these in - they seemed relevant:
I'm reminded of a quote, which I shall now mangle:
"Man cannot write so clearly as to not be misunderstood."

"But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation. 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small."
The second pass at the question included a rumination: if the Bible were literally delivered - specific word for specific word - directly from God to us - without man's free will intervening at any point in the process: mightn't there be only one Gospel book in the New Testament, instead of four? Wouldn't God have gotten everything correct on His first try?

The third pass at the question was an indignant rant that the Bible inerrancy question represented a religious test, and as such was positively UNAMERICAN!

The problem with the third pass, I later realized:

While there is no religious test to determine who can run for office, running for office and being elected are different things. Voters can take religion into account when deciding who to vote for.

Thus, the fourth pass was a consideration:

What do voters really want and/or deserve to know about a candidate's religious belief?

Voters want to get a sense of how a candidate was formed into who he is. It is relevant for voters to know a candidate is Christian, for instance, as this infers a candidate was shaped by the Bible's over-riding themes, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The key question: How much do the minutiae of a candidate's biblical interpretations reveal about how a candidate was formed as a person?

Not much, imo. The candidates are rarely theologians who have dived deeply into scripture study. Candidates mostly are familiar with over-riding themes, and not much more.

What about: How much do the minutiae of a candidate's biblical interpretations affect how the candidate will govern?

Also not much. Diving deeper into the Bible is diving deeper into the spiritual - not into secular questions such as how to govern a country. Jesus rendered unto Caesar. He never commented on constitutional government.

The fifth pass was a flowery refusal to answer the interlocutor's inappropriate question. This fifth pass included some political flowery-ness, in order to make me look good as a candidate. The fifth pass sucked eggs.

The sixth pass slashed the flowery language out of the fifth pass. I think I'm going to let the sixth pass stand as the best televised debate answer. It contains a good combination of pugnacious, yet polite, plus serious and to-the-point. I think it's the best answer for the format...

Do you believe in every word of this book?
This gentleman's actual question is:

Do you agree with my interpretation of every portion of the Bible?

I can give a short answer: no.

Even Bible scholars cannot agree on the meaning of everything in the Bible. I am confident not a one of us on stage agree with this gentleman's interpretation of everything in the Bible.

Vote Greg in 2008!

I'm able to revise answers at will(!) - against good blog etiquette - and for my own enjoyment(and understanding) - then bump the revised answers to the top of my blog!

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Debate comment which is like salsa with chips

Ace of Spades has a CNN debate post which goes well with my own debate post - kinda like salsa goes with tortilla chips.

Ace touches on something I thought of writing about: CNN's selection of video questioners who made Repubs look bad. My own post did discuss how CNN's choice of questions was designed to make Repubs look like bigots. Ace's point is the questioners themselves were chosen - for their looks, clothing, attitudes, and background scenery - in order to make Repubs look as much as possible like scary Deliverance hillbillys.

Read his post. Like the rest of his blog, the post is fun and profane.

Related: Good highlight video of some of the questioners, and of some of the high points of the debate. Notice this video is not generated by MSM, as I, for one, expected it would be. The internet is overtaking the MSM in so many areas...