Ugh

Passive.

Pacify.

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

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

Supercool

and it gets cooler as it goes along.

This video touches on a couple of technical aspects.

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.

Update:
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.

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.

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,
visit www.FreedomsWatch.org

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.

Cookies

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

More genius, from http://swiftkidsfortruth.org/



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.

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.

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):

3. SILVER MINE

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.

4. EVEN COWBOYS GET THE BLUES

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!

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.

XXVII.

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,

XXVIII.

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?

XXIX.

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?'

XXX.

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."

XXXI.

"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.


Related:
Envy, psyche blogs, sports laboratories

McCain and a helpful lefty in the CNN debate

McCain:

[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.

Moderator:

Helpful Lefty, you have 30 seconds...

Lefty:

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.

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."

Huckabee:
"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...

Question:

Do you believe in every word of this book?

Answer:

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!

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...

TV football announcers - former players - don't understand rule

J'accuse!

`

The prelude to this accusation is being shown over and over on ESPN:

Cowboys WR Miles Austin, #19, is running under a deep pass.

Packers DB Tramon Williams, #24, is slightly behind Austin, and on Austin's right.

Williams attempts to cross behind Austin, and to get to Austin's left. In the attempt, Williams' legs and Austin's legs get tangled up. Austin was running a straight line. Williams attempted to loop around behind Austin, but instead went diagonally through the follow through of Austin's striding legs.

Nearest ref calls nothing. Distant ref runs in and calls pass interference.

Color Commentator Chris Collinsworth, plus ESPN Highlight Commentator Sean Salisbury, both assert this was a blown call. They cite the NFL rule that getting legs tangled does not equate to pass interference.

HOWEVER

The legs tangled rule surely only applies if players are running side by side. It cannot logically apply to a DB crossing behind a WR. The Green Bay DB ran through Miles Austin's legs. It might have been an intentional maneuver by the Green Bay DB - which is why IT MUST be called as interference. Otherwise, you would see DBs accidentally-on-purpose running through WR's legs on five passes per game.

This is completely obvious to me. It was not obvious to Chris Collinsworth, nor is it completely obvious to Sean Salisbury. I've never read the NFL rulebook, yet I know, via using logic and reason, both former players are wrong. I question their reasoning! I demand access to their Wonderlic scores!

The End Zone

SOME THINGS ARE QUITE CLEAR FROM HERE

Oh, I almost forgot: Go Cowboys!

I answer the CNN YouTube debate questions

I would be standing onstage in a blue suit, white shirt, bright red tie, and cordovan saddle oxfords. The red tie says bright personality!


1. Illegal aliens?

Answer: We must ease and smooth the process of becoming an American citizen.

That said: as much as we can, we must stop the influx of illegal aliens into our nation. A nation which cannot control its borders is imperiled.

2. Amnesty?

Answer: No, but... sigh... yes.

It would take a bizarrely large amount of resources to deport the millions of illegals who are here now. If we get to a point where we control our borders, we can then look at some type of limited, workable amnesty program.

Reagan agreed to amnesty in return for a promise to strengthen border enforcement. That promise to Reagan was broken. This time: border enforcement first; limited amnesty second.

3. Guest workers?

Answer: I like the idea. I am wary of Washington, D.C.'s implementation of it.

4. Would you support a federal law which would require states to give the same tuition discounts which illegal aliens receive to the children of our military members?

Answer: The federal government has no business dictating state university policy decisions to a state government.

5. Congressman Paul: do you believe the North American Union is a legitimate threat to become actual policy?

Congressman Paul:

And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up.

Answer: zzzzz... ahem.... um.. what?

6. what measures will you take to tackle the national debt and control spending?

Answer:
a. Grow the economy through tax cuts.
b. Encourage and support Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn 's efforts to stop pork spending.
c. Reform entitlements. Some entrenched government entitlements need to shrink. Others need to be completely eliminated.

7. What are the names of the top three federal programs you would reduce in size?

The President doesn't get to reduce federal programs, so I cannot make absolute promises. Social Security needs reform, or else the program will soon enough cease to exist. The Dept. of Education ought be reduced to a shell of itself. Beyond those two, I agree with Fred Thompson:

It's a target rich environment.

Huckabee:

Get rid of the IRS .... Most people in this country are more afraid of an audit than they are of a mugging, and there's a reason why.

8. do you support the elimination of the federal income tax in favor of a national retail sales tax?

Answer: yes

9. Would you promise ... you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?

Answer: the Laffer Curve has proven itself legitimate. Accordingly: I will work to decrease taxes; and thus to aid our economic growth; and thus to increase our national tax revenue. I see nothing which could encourage me to raise taxes during this era of already-high taxation. Yet, I'm not comfortable making any absolute promise about policy.

10. This question asked by a Democrat who used to be an intern for Dem. Congresswoman Jane Harmon. Farm subsidies?

Answer: Let the free market rule --- with the caveat that foreign nations do subsidize their farmers, and we would have to look at that before acting.

There's been too much D.C. smoke surrounding the details of farm subsidies. Those details scream out for sunlight.

11. Note: this next questioner was one of at least 9 Democrat plants who asked some of the 32 questions directed at Repub candidates. This is completely fair to the Repub candidates! There's nothing unfair about Repub candidates answering any question! Bring on the questions! This does, however, point to CNN's reporting and/or editorial ... incompetence and/or bias.

This questioner is a prominent union activist for United Steelworkers - a union which has already endorsed John Edwards, btw. A clever girl, she subtly slipped three questions into her video. She used her two children, both under age 7, as props:

What are you going to do to make sure that these kind of [lead poisoned] toys don't make their way into our homes and that we have safe toys that are made in America again and we keep jobs in America?

Answer:
Re: lead poisoning: the answer is to govern more effectively in many small areas. There is no one single band-aid which will solve the problem.

Re: Congratulations on working "Made in America" into your video.

Re: "keep jobs in America." America's workers do not need nannies. I will not dull America's competitive edge by promising our government will "keep jobs in America." Our competitive edge is what makes us great. America is not about equality of outcome. We are about freedom of opportunity - and all the messiness and greatness that implies.

Congressman Duncan Hunter(a righteous, white knight of a candidate!):

China is cheating on trade, and they're using that $200 billion trade deficit over the United States to buy ships, planes and missiles. They are clearly arming. And it's in the interest of the United States... (Applause) ... to stop China's cheating. My bill, incidentally, that's up right now would do that.

12. Second Amendment?

Answer: Love it just as much as the First.

13. Mr. Giuliani ... why do you believe [as you said in March, 2000] that citizens should be required to pass an exam in order to exercise their right to protect themselves and their families?

Rudy Giuliani:

reasonable regulations would be about criminal background, background of mental instability, basically the ones that are outlined in the opinion of the judge who wrote the Parker decision, Judge Silverman. And if those regulations go beyond that, then those are unconstitutional.

I think states can have a little bit of leeway. New York could have a somewhat stricter rule than, let's say, Kentucky. Texas might have different rules than Ohio. But generally, you've got to comply with this rule.

Now, the Supreme Court's going to decide this. The Supreme Court's going to decide this, probably within the next six months. The Parker (ph) case has been taken to the Supreme Court. They're going to decide whether it's a right that pertains to the militia -- which I don't believe it is -- or is it a right that is a personal right. I believe that it is.

And I will live by that. And people will be allowed to have guns. I'm not going to interfere with that. Generally, decisions are going to be made on a state basis. And they're going to have to comply with the Constitution.

Answer: The End Zone agrees with Rudy, while continuing to watch him with a wary eye.

14. want to tell us about your gun collection, roughly how many you own, what your favorite make, model and caliber is, if any of them require a tax stamp?

Answer: This is a friendly question, yet my answer is: no. I don't want to stand on a stage with a true American hero: Senator John McCain, and even accidentally get into a pissing contest over who owns what guns.

I do think it is fun to shoot at targets for sport. And everyone I know of who has ever shot at a target, for sport, has enjoyed it.

15. But what about the war going on in our country, black on black crime? Two hundred to 400 black men die yearly in one city alone. What are you going to do about that war? It feels like the (inaudible) is right outside.

Answer: First, it's a compliment to the American military that you would compare living conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan with living conditions in an American city.

Second, from a government perspective, what Mayor Giuliani did in NYC - his "no broken windows" offensive, and his micro targeting of the toughest neighborhoods - ought be encouraged in other city governments and police departments.

Third, a President must lead and inspire churches and social agencies in their already declared fights against immoral, antisocial behavior. In turn, churches and social agencies must lead and inspire grassroots community leaders in this fight. These are grassroots problems. They exist right at street-level ... right at the gut level of American society. The fight will be won or lost at street level - from the ground up.

I will lead. Yet I will not pretend that I am the one who will win this fight. You, young man, are the one who will win or lose this fight. Godspeed to you.

16. (This question is from a John Edwards supporter. Yet, it is an excellent question, and one which I have seen raised in other venues. I am glad this question was asked.)

In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

Answer: Abortion law should not be a federal issue. This question ought be left up to the states. As the states considered such difficult issues, I would remind that forgiveness is a virtue.

Fred Thompson:

I think it should be fashioned along the same lines it is now. Most states have abortion laws pertain and prohibit abortion after viability. It goes to the doctor performing the abortion, not the girl, or the young girl, or her parents, whoever it might be. I think that same pattern needs to be followed. It could just be moved up earlier, or much earlier in the process if the state so determined.

17. If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it?

Answer: I would not sign it. Abortion is a question which is properly left for states to decide. I would not contribute to further federal grabbing of the states' proper power.

18. This question is from a Democrat plant:
The death penalty, what would Jesus do?

Answer:
If Jesus had advocated against the death penalty, you can be assured America's Founding Fathers - a group largely comprised of deeply religious Christians - would have known about it, and would have outlawed the death penalty in the American Constitution.

One of my big surprises, upon seriously reading the Bible, was the Biblical support for the death penalty. Sister Helen Prejean, an anti-death penalty activist, is commendably honest enough to note the Bible does not condemn the death penalty:

"It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find [anything] in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this."

Jesus lived in an era in which the death penalty was common - yet Jesus did not condemn the death penalty. In a series of non-related statements about other matters, Jesus, arguably, repeatedly implied agreement with the death penalty's legitimacy.

Huckabee:

there are those who say, "How can you be pro-life and believe in the death penalty?"
Because there's a real difference between the process of adjudication, where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us, as citizens, under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist.

19. Do you believe every word in this book?(holds up the Bible)

Answer: This gentleman's actual question is:

Do any of us agree with his 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 interpret everything in the Bible in the same way this gentleman does.

20. This question was asked by a former CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) activist. CAIR is a notorious apologist for all things terrorist; and a notorious accuser of America for all wild allegations of wrongdoing. What would you do as president to repair the image of America in the eyes of the Muslim world?

Answer: Win.

What we are currently doing - especially in Iraq - is doing wonders for the image of America in the Muslim world. Iraqis are working with America to improve their nation, their government, and their national infrastructure. Iraqis are fighting with Americans against Al Qaeda. These are wondrous occurrences: wonderful for America; wonderful for Iraqis; wonderful for the world.

Duncan Hunter:

to the critics of America I would say this. When you were faced with disease and starvation, the Americans brought food and medicine. When you had earthquakes and tsunamis and floods, the Americans came and helped you. And when you were threatened from outside, the Americans left the safety of their own homes to come and defend you.

I will never apologize for the United States of America.

21. Waterboarding?

Answer: It's not proper for me to take a position at this time.

22. In favor of long term military commitment in Iraq?

Answer: Yes. Our safest location is not distanced apart from our enemy, but drawn up tight against him - right up against his belt buckle. This is how we discovered the nuclear arms network of the Pakistani scientist Khan - among MANY other important intelligence discoveries since March 2003. Our intelligence capabilities are now exponentially greater than they were in Autumn 2002. Our sway with the intelligence branches of (alleged) friendly nations, and thus our sharing of intelligence information with (alleged) friendly nations, is now exponentially greater than it was in Autumn 2002.

McCain:

let me remind you, Congressman, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict.
(Applause)
I think it's important for all Americans to understand the fundamental difference. After we left Vietnam, they didn't want to follow us home. They wanted to build their own workers' paradise. If you read Zarqawi, if 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.

If Bin Laden follows us home, I think the climate near Phoenix would suit him best. He might settle near Sedona, or go further north and hide out in the Grand Canyon area. If he ran afoul of the National Parks Service, he might try hiding in the New Mexico badlands.

23. Rudy, how do you respond to allegations you are using 9/11 to propel yourself into the White House?

Rudy:

I would like people to look at my whole record.
[...]
I was United States attorney in the Southern District of New York. I prosecuted thousands of organized crimes figures. I prosecuted Sicilian Mafia members, never done before in an American court.

I was mayor of a city that was described as one of the greatest turnarounds of any city in the history of America. George Will said I ran the most conservative government in this country, most successful conservative government in this country in the last 50 or 60 years.
[...]
I've been tested in a way in which I ran the third-largest government in this country, the 17th-largest economy in the world, and I got very, very remarkable results.

And that is the evaluation of other people, not me.

24. Will you grant extensive Vice Presidential power?

Answer: Bloody hell straight at you, CNN.

25. This question came from a retired General who is a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Steering Committee. Somehow, CNN used Google to fly the General from Santa Rosa, CA to St. Petersburg, FL; yet they didn't use Google to, you know, actually GOOGLE the General's political background.(stolen from Instapundit)

CNN allowed the General to rebut the candidate's answers to his questions. Overall, they gave the General over half as much speaking time - for his single issue - as Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo received to discuss all issues.

Fox News later reported the General said CNN "Didn't ask" about his political affiliation, therefore he "Didn't tell." You know: because of the irony.(blatantly stolen from Protein Wisdom)

The General's question:
Why [do] you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?

Answer: Based on everything I know at this time: gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

There is an argument that gays serving openly will hurt recruiting. I don't believe recruiting will be affected in significant measure. Do you want to serve with the finest military in the history of the world, or do you want to avoid being around openly gay people?

I have confidence in the American people, and I have confidence in American military personnel.
26. (this question is from a Dem Obama supporter)
Why should Log Cabin Republicans support you?

Answer: I am reaching out neither to gays, nor to any other identity group. I am reaching out to conservatives. If you believe in limited government, and in strong national defense: I ask for your vote.

27. This question asked by Democrat Adam Florzak, who quit his job at Catapillar to work with Democrat Senator Dick Durbin on Social Security reform. National debt? How will you deal with $2 Billion raiding of Social Security trust fund?

Answer: A raid which was vastly conducted by Democrat controlled Congresses, I might point out.

The only solution has already been alluded to: shrink taxes, grow the economy; shrink pork spending; shrink entitlement spending.

Though the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund is a scandal, the U.S. national debt is demagogued way too much. As a percentage of GDP, our national debt is not out of whack.

Note: Again - the hard questions are nice opportunities. They are gifts. Yet - I'm incredulous about CNN's role. Does anyone at CNN take a moment to wonder why and how they whittled five thousand question entries down to forty entries ... thirty-two of which got asked during the debate ... nine of those which were generated by Democrats? Answer: Nah.

28. Human space exploration to Mars by 2020?

Answer: Yes - but I don't know about the timeline. Like a great structure, space exploration calls to us, and reminds of greatness. Further, we gain scientific value from it. However: no blank checks. Public/private investment partnership would be good.

29. This question asked by a Democrat who is an aspiring screenwriter, and a big John Edwards fan. Many African Americans hold fairly conservative views. And yet, we overwhelmingly vote Democrat in most elections. So my question to any of the Republican candidates here is, why don't we vote for you?

Side note: Can you see the obvious answer/subtext of this question? The only possible answer is: because African Americans believe Republicans are racists.

CNN has selected a question which pre-supposes Republican guilt: either of racism, or of creating the insensitive appearance of racism. Either way, the question implies Republicans are guilty.

Nevertheless, I'm glad CNN selected the question. Let the sun shine! If you have nothing to hide, the tough questions are the best questions, as they allow you to get the truth out.

Answer: I am soliciting votes neither by skin hue, nor by geographic heritage. I am soliciting votes according to belief in free markets, and in limited government. If you believe in these, I ask for your vote.

30. What does the Confederate Stars and Bars flag represent to you?

Answer: Bloody hell! This is why no one wants to run for President.

Grumble... grumble... sheesh...

Okay, here we go:

Possession of a Confederate flag does not mean a person is a racist.

If you are moved to engage in a societal nicety: forego the flag. There are lots of other things to be involved in. There are lots of other ways to honor history and heritage.

Conversely: if you are moved to assert your independence and freedom: you've every right to display that flag. Go right ahead. Let no one tread on you.

31. Repairing American infrastructure?

Answer: sheesh... someone is against this?

32. This asked by a Democrat Bill Richardson supporter who had previously participated in the Democrat YouTube Debate. It's hard to believe CNN did not know where these questions were coming from. Ron Paul: are you going to run as an independent?

Ron Paul: (non denial denial)


And that's the end! The debate was raucous. I had fun participating in it. I'd like to thank all the little people!

I close with this, from pollster Frank Luntz, about the issue which might define this election:

I can't overestimate just how much Republicans are against illegal immigration, nor how much they want their candidate to stop it.

Update: Michelle Malkin informs about the specific Democrats who asked questions.