Vox Popoli

In fairness, the odds were only 6-1 in their favor:

The Belgian state is no longer able to guarantee the security of its citizens. On Saturday afternoon Guido Demoor, a 54-year old Flemish train conductor on his way to work, was kicked to death by six “youths” on a crowded bus near Antwerp’s Central Station. The incident recalls the rush-hour murder ten weeks ago of Joe Van Holsbeeck, 17 years of age, in a crowded Brussels Central Station on 12 April.

Guido Demoor, a father of two, intervened when six “youths” got on bus 23 in Antwerp and began to intimidate passengers. There were some forty people on the bus. Demoor asked the “youths” to calm down, whereupon they turned on him, savagely beating and kicking the man. At the next stop thirty passengers fled the bus. The thugs kept beating Demoor. They then pulled the emergency brake and jumped from the bus leaving their victim to die.

Three Moroccans, two of whom are minors, were arrested today. The website of the Dutch paper De Stentor reports tonight that a fourth suspect, believed to be the ringleader, fled into a shop as the police were poised to arrest him. He managed to escape from the shop when dozens of “youths” came to his rescue. Witnesses had described the culprits as immigrant youths of between 18 and 21 years of age. During the weekend the police had called for witnesses as only four people had come forward. The police offered the witnesses absolute confidentiality and promised not to reveal their identities. “Obviously people fear reprisals,” Gazet van Antwerpen wrote today.

I’d say that a society deserves to die when 40 adults cower in fear from six unarmed teenagers. And referencing the recent subject under discussion, a government that can’t control random youth thuggery isn’t about to do anything about the organized crime syndicates that run drugs and sex slaves.

From Jump the Shark:

If ER didn’t jump the shark when they cut Romano’s arm off, it ran screaming on fire straight at the shark, tripped, and fell flat on its face when they dropped the helicoptor on him. I stopped where I was, walking through the room, stared open-mouthed at the television, and started to laugh. My fiance said, “That’s the worst thing on television, ever.”

I wouldn’t say that I particularly liked ER and I don’t think I’ve seen more than a fifth of the episodes, but I would have to say that the helicopter falling on Romano was probably the single most inadvertantly funny thing on television that didn’t involve Joe Namath.

Like the guy who wrote the quote above, I wasn’t watching the episode but I did happen to walk in the room just as Romano looked up at the evil helicopter and I, too, burst out laughing. I haven’t been able to even think of the show without chuckling since… it astounds me that someone didn’t look at the writer who came up with the idea and tell him that it was too silly to even consider. I can only imagine the ordeal that the poor actor who played Romano must have gone through in attempting to keep a straight face while pretending that flaming death was descending from the skies.

Now, it’s entirely possible that ER jumped before that, but if not, you couldn’t point to a more flawlessly executed shark jump than that one.

While the international federation has made a good start in fixing the beautiful game, it’s clear that it still has a long way to go in cutting down on the acting and diving that still permeates the game at the top level. There’s much less nonsense in the national leagues – except for Serie A – since a player practically has to have his leg broken to draw a card in the Premiership, but the 20 cards distributed in the Holland-Portugal game and the dubious penalties that decided the Australia-Italy and Ghana-USA games indicate a need for a comprehensive solution.

The real problem is not with the rules, but with the human limitations of the referee. It’s very hard to see precisely what is going on, and when a ref sees player goes down out of the corner of his eye, his first reaction is to penalize the player committing the foul, whether it is real or a phantom one. And then there’s the problem demonstrated last night, when Thierry Henry was legitimately fouled with an elbow in the chest that knocked him down, but clutched his face in an attempt to make the foul look worse than it was and draw a yellow. Unfortunately, FIFA seldom penalizes players for acting after the fact, which only guarantees that matters will get worse.

I recommend three changes. The first is an assistant referee in the booth at all televised games with a phone link to the referee. When a card is given, the assistant ref can review the play as play continues, giving the referee the opportunity to withdraw a wrongly given card and/or to give a card to a player that is clearly seen to be acting in order to draw a called foul. This would have prevented the Portugal-Holland game from spiraling out of control when Holland’s Boulahrouz began the series of mini-dramas after being lightly bumped in the nose by Figo’s forehead as Boulahrouz, not Figo, would have been penalized, bringing the matter to a close instead of inspiring the old Portuguese fox to return the favor minutes later.

The second is to force each team to withdraw one player at the end of injury time. After each five minutes that proceeds without a score, the referee will blow a whistle and another player will be withdrawn. This will speed up the finish and eliminate the stupid penalty kicks that are not properly a major part of the game. Five-on-five is still more of a soccer game than penalties and it would lead to some interesting tactical decisions, such as when the right moment to pull the goalie would be.

The third is to abandon the ill-conceived Fair Play concept. Players who are willing to cheat in order to stick their opponent’s with a yellow card are perfectly willing to go down and play hurt whenever the other team is on the attack. This happens far too often and I applauded Spain last night when they completely ignored the French defender on the ground and went on to have a crack at goal. Furthermore, if a player’s injury forces a stoppage of play, I’d require him to sit out for at least five minutes before he is allowed to return to the field. Zambrotta played injured the last 30 minutes of the USA-Italy game because the Azzurri were out of substitutions, so clearly the players are capable of it when it’s required.

ES disagrees:

Regarding your column, it hardly seems Christian to gloat and proclaim “I told you so” where the lives of so many millions of your sisters are concerned. In 2004 and 2005, I went to Iraq and Afghanistan to study the performance of American servicewomen; in both countries, was embedded with combat troops. I discovered that for many Iraqi and Afghan women, the sight of GI Jane was their first real glimpse of freedom for women. I don’t mean that they wanted to become soldiers, or even that they approved of our presence there. But they saw that women have choices other than the burqah or the brothel.

Sometimes, freedom begins when you say No to the people who tell you what your choices are. And as every good Christian knows, you do not have to genuflect before every jerk who presumes to speak in the name of the Lord.

It’s not a question of “I told you so”, especially because I didn’t. I predicted neither European post-Christianity nor sex slavery. I am, however, logically extrapolating future American trends from recent European ones, which seems sensible given the way in which the Panamerican political elite is directly imitating their European counterparts. It is a warning, nothing more. If I happen to find humor in the irony, that does not change the accuracy of the prediction. Time will tell.

The idea that being a professional soldier is freedom is a rather bizarre perspective, especially given the Founding Father’s jaundiced view of standing armies. Indeed, the “performance” of female American soldiers has been pathetic, the Private Jessica myths notwithstanding.

I daresay the ratio of GI Janes pulling off this sort of thing is 1000x or more compared to enemies killed or wounded by our brave American Amazons.

Mouthybitch makes a very dubious claim:

One day, at almost twelve, I just snapped. I set my alarm for three a.m. and rose silently from my bed. I glided to the computer room, shut the door and booted up the machine. Trying over and over all night long, I finally beat every high score in Wing Commander, leaving at first shy little messages like, “Guess Who?” They graduated, becoming things like, “It’s me again, not you,” and, “I beat you again. Try and stop me.” I sleep-walked through the next day, but no one ever said anything about it. And I didn’t care. I had beaten them. I checked every day to see if they had beaten me, then got up that night and went back, trying over and over until I had earned more

I detect an unmistakeable odor of bovine ejectus here. First, there are no high scores in Wing Commander. There are only Sorties and Kills, which are saved according to the pilot’s name which is entered once upon starting the game. Having the most Kills is merely a matter of playing the most Sorties, there isn’t any “high score” record system ala many arcade games as these screen shots conclusively demonstrate. It’s possible that the Nintendo version might have had a scores, I never played that bastardized version, but the fact that she refers to the “computer” and “Commmand and Conquer” indicates that she’s talking about either the DOS or Amiga version. However, the reference to Wizardry and Wing Commander being “strategy” games is a strong clue that she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about here.

The lesson here is that girls can do everything that boys can do, and more, in Rainbow Unicorn world.

Note – this is not to say that girls cannot achieve game success, even pretty blonde women. Space Bunny, for example, is also known as Princess Pooyan, courtesy of her onetime Internet High Score in the classic arcade game during the early days of MAME. She can still beat me at that one.

I am disappointed at the way in which the usual suspects have interpreted one or two vulgarisms as permission to freely engage in the vernacular. Again, I repeat that my occasional descent is not blanket permission for everyone else to do the same, we are not in junior high and whereas the occasional exclamation point adds seasoning to the subject, ending every sentence with one quickly grows tiresome.

You know who you are, so knock it off. And if a non-regular does it, don’t follow suit. If you feel the need to verbally unleash, go do it at Pluto’s Spewage since he seems to so enjoy the company of the occasional random castoff. As an added bonus, you might be able to see a chubby Slavic peasant with her shirt off while you’re at it.

Now, for the important stuff. I was disappointed with the performance of both the Azzurri and the Swiss; as Jamie correctly anticipated, I was looking forward to seeing the two teams meet. Australia played well, but they did not deserve to win as the team was let down by Gus Hiddink’s conservative game management, which rather reminded me of a Vikings-Cowboys game during the Dennis Green era.

The Vikings were playing at home in the dome the year following one of the Cowboy’s Super Bowl winning seasons and scored in the last minute of the game. The score was 21-20 and Denny had to choose whether to kick or go for two. As the White Buffalo, Big Chilly and I went nuts, he sent on the special teams unit to kick the extra point and send the game into overtime.

So, here’s the point. You are playing the defending Super Bowl Champions, which feature Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin. You’ve played them even for four quarters, and now you have a chance to win the game. Do you take it? Green didn’t, he played not to lose, so naturally, he lost. Dallas won the coin toss, marched down the field and kicked the game-winning field goal.

While the red card was not justified, (the Australian wasn’t clearly through the Italian defense, so it should have been a yellow), the Socceroos had the Azzurri where they wanted them after 50 minutes. With Nesta out due to injury and Materazzi out, Hiddinck had to press hard for the win. The Italians feature one of the best defenses in the world, so they were never going to crack easly even with Gattuso, a midfielder, playing in the back four. Italy is perfectly comfortable playing on the counterattack, so as soon as they realized that Hiddink wasn’t going to put the pressure on them, they relaxed and let the game come to them.

The damning statistic is that Italy had 12 shots, seven on goal, to Australia’s 10, four on goal. That should never, ever be the case when a side is up a man, let alone when the penalized team is missing two starting defenders. The fact that the penalty in question was won by Grosso, a defender attacking so far forward, shows how little the Italians had to fear from the Australian pressure, or more to the point, the lack of it.

There was no penalty, but that being said, Neill’s decision to go to ground so early was remarkably stupid. Australia had two defenders between Grosso and the goal, had either of them merely held position instead of diving for the ball, the attack would have been thwarted. While FIFA must fix the diving problem exacerbated in part by its Fair Play initiative, (I will post my thoughts on this and other related matters soon), the cheap penalty was a good example of how calcio karma penalizes the stupid and benefits the hard-working. The lesson is: 1) don’t leave your feet if you don’t have to, and, 2) Great runs make good things happen, even when they aren’t deserved.

As for the other game, Ukraine didn’t deserve to win so much as Switzerland deserved to lose. Those three missed penalties were the worst I have ever seen in succession by any team; even my six year olds know not to kick it directly at the goalie.

In which we also apologize for the delay in responding to the LP’s request for clarification. As a few of the Volk are aware, I was somewhat engaged with the fallout from an unfortunate incident which is now behind us, and I’m happy to report that everyone involved is perfectly well.

I am beginning to suspect that the man behind the curtain, if you will, over at Vox Popoli does not actually believe that which he spews. His argumentation is faulty and, it would seem, deliberately inflammatory. As a result, this may well be my last post on the subject. But for now, I refuse to be bullied into silence.

As I previously assured Evil Bender, I do indeed stand by my position on these matters. But have no fear of bullying, post all you like as no one is launching cyberattacks or writing complaints to your employer in an effort to silence you. But if you consider having your thoughts broken down and stripped to reveal their flaws equivalent to being bullied, well, that’s just education. Live and learn. And for the Nth time, a naked assertion proves nothing. Either show how my argumentation is faulty or stand revealed as a pretender like so many before you.

First, I’d like to respond to your comment that “the Lizard Princess and Mrs. Smitty were respondingly poorly, insufficiently and inaccurately.” The sentence of mine that you posted in your entry titled “She will look beautiful in chains” was taken out of context in the simplest sense of the term: I was responding to a comment your follower “keer K guard” made: “the continual claims that women can do anything men can etc. is patently false when it comes to breaking horrendous trends like the re-emergence (not that it ever went away, but is now explosive and moving to 2nd and 1st world nations) of sexual slavery.”

That particular comment did not merely refer to your inexplicable failure to recognize that slavery has only ever been forcibly ended by male force – and supremely powerful male force at that – but to the sum total of your responses at that point, which despite Mrs. Smitty’s claims, were neither “lengthy” nor “thoughtful”.

I was merely interested in having the logic behind that argument explained to me. (Please note that I expressed no such “redundant notion of political action against an activity that violates numerous existing laws;” you’ll note from the use of the conditional tense in my sentence that I was speaking hypothetically.) “keer K guard” never responded to my statement, which made it rather handy that you took it–albeit out of context–over to your blog, because while you personally did nothing to clear up my confusion–you merely suggested that in Eastern Europe I would be beaten for questioning such a thing–your commenters were able to enlighten me on that point. I gather from the comments thus far that in your opinions I am incapable of fighting the re-emergence of sex slavery because women are powerless to fight such things both physically and politically. Am I correct about that? Please do correct me if I’m wrong.

I was aware you were speaking hypothetically, it was just an amusing and naive hypothesis. I didn’t have the impression you harbored visions of going Rambo on anyone. If you wanted to know my reasoning, then you had merely to ask. Pretty Lady, LisaLisa and many others who don’t happen to share my ideology or my religious faith can tell you that I’m quite happy to engage in a civil, high-minded discussion if approached politely. But begin by throwing a jab, however passive-aggressive, and there’s a high probability that I’ll respond in like manner. If I’m not shy about publicly sparring with national commentators, I’m certainly not going to be hesitant about firing back at a random Internet critic. (I do, however, believe that all critics deserve their shot and I dislike the way in which many bloggers believe they are somehow unaccountable to critics whose traffic is less than their own. And I say this as one who turned down an invitation to the Michael Reagan show yesterday; like John Stewart I have no interest in playing Sock Monkey du jour.)

Anyhow, in answer to your question, both men and women are politically powerless to fight the re-emergence of sex slavery for three reasons. First, in the abstract, political power is incapable of controlling humans without force, so it makes no difference if the anti-trafficking political elite is male or female if a sufficient percentage of the populace favors it. The political elite can guide and it can manipulate, but it cannot force. This is why, for example, the pro-war media is constantly in despair over the insufficient enthusiasm of Americans for the elite’s World Democratic Revolution project, whether it is the Democrat’s version 1.0 (Somalia and Serbia) or version 2.0 Republican (Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran).

Second, in the areas currently most infamous for sex slavery, there is no political power to be exercised. The European Union is an undemocratic entity run by the unelected European Commission, so it makes no difference who is serving in the German, French or British parliaments, all that matters is the dictates of Brussels.

Third, sex slavery is already illegal on numerous counts since it typically involves kidnapping, theft, assault, failure to declare income, illegal immigration and, in most countries, prostitution. A War on Sex Slavery will be no more successful than the wars on poverty and drugs, and due to sex slavery’s complicated and easily concealed nature – to say nothing of the varied interests supporting it – it will likely be far less successful than those two proven failures.

And finally, as to why you, the Lizard Princess, are personally powerless to end sex slavery, as we have explained why there is no political solution, this leaves us to take your metaphor literally. And while I have no doubt that a Hollywood film about a kickass superheroine singlehandedly breaking up a chain of evil Romanian sex slavers would be cool and very successful, the notion is absurd on its face. Not merely because women lack the upper body strength of men, they also tend to lack the decisiveness and the sheer aggressiveness required for physical combat of any kind. More importantly, they are reluctant tool users, especially when it comes to mastering the use of the sort of deadly tools required to impose one’s will on a group of recalcitrant individuals given to violence.

I will certainly agree that men still wield much of the power in the world. Where we part ways, however, is in how we feel about this fact: I would like to see equality between the sexes, while you and your followers believe that a society wherein men wield all the power would be best for all involved. Again, please correct me if I’m wrong.

You are wrong in that I believe that a society wherein men wield all the power is not only historical, but inevitable. Even in nominally equalitarian societies, women are only permitted to wield the appearance of power as they provide power-seeking men with a much-needed proxy until the time such cover is no longer needed. This is an old game which was played by both Lenin and Hitler and is currently in vogue with Eurofascists, Panamericans and mullahs alike.

But this is a minor error compared to the more profound misunderstanding of power. It is not only women who are helpless tools used by the small group of men in power, but 99 percent of all men as well. Before you can change society, you must first understand how it works. The dichotomy between what feminists and other post-Christians expected from post-Christian society and the results thus far achieved should inspire some to begin considering the way in which they have been used by those elites working towards global fascism. Indeed, it is clear that the campai
gn against sex-trafficking is one of many threads intended to bind those mighty fasces together…. do not, national laws and national sovereignties stand in the way of tracking down those helpless victims?

It’s just the game that is older than prostitution, the promise of order out of chaos.

As for your professed belief in equality, I am skeptical. As a man who verbally insults another man deserves a punch in the mouth, would you consider me justified for punching a woman who delivers a similar insult? That is genuine equality. If your answer is that no one deserves a punch in the mouth, then you don’t believe in equality, you believe in imposing feminized society. They are two different concepts. Which do you support?

So, in short, I believe in and do what I can to work toward equality between the sexes, while you believe in and do what you can to ensure a male-dominated society. We may well have to agree to disagree on that point, but I see no reason why we can’t discuss it like adults, with mutual respect. Why all the vitriol? Do you all not realize that saying things like “modern women need to be signed up to get punched in the face twice” only serves to discredit your argument?

Do what you like, it doesn’t matter. And I don’t have to do anything to ensure continued male-domination. Feminism, like communism, will last as long as it is useful to the male global power elite. When it ceases to become useful for their purposes, it will be eradicated as quickly and brutally as Ernst Roehm’s homosexual-ridden Sturmabteilung were supplanted by Himmler’s gay-murdering Schutzstaffel. Please note that sex slavery and other anti-liberty unpleasantries are growing fastest in areas where the global facism is currently most advanced.

As for vitriol, I already stated my practice of responding in kind. If a critic makes use of naked assertions, then I am free to do the same… it is as silly to make comments about my logic or my sexual orientation without providing supporting evidence as it would be for me to state that I am only being criticized because the critic enjoys carnal relations with certain vegetables. I further submit that an important difference is that I usually respond to the entirety of my critic’s case in company with the rhetorical artillery, while most of my critics immediately fall silent on points I have successfully addressed and begin evasive maneuvers. Will you do the same?

And finally, why should such a statement serve to discredit my argument since I never said or wrote any such thing. Even if I had, what reasons would you give in support of your apparent belief that modern women do not need to sign up for such treatment? If a rebuttal is transparently simple, then there is no excuse for not providing it upon request.

And yes, the Dutch deserved to lose. He who lives by the fraudulent yellow card is sent off by the fraudulent yellow card. Don’t mess with an old fox like Figo, he’ll bite you in the ass at the first opportunity and when you’re least expecting it.

What Vikings fan was murdered by NFL referees in 1975? No Googling, just answer the question if you know it. Tie-breaker: name the instrument of righteous retribution which soon dropped from the skies.

I will announce the draft date soon. We still need to have a discussion about keepers, so if you want to share your thoughts, do so now. How many, etc.

Shakespeare’s Sister isn’t very familiar with the Bible:

A Christian is someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ—and it has lost all meaning to a person who willfully ignores the exhortations of goodness, patience, and love that are central to its namesake’s message.

And it’s yet another Biblically-illiterate individual who will no doubt be sadly disappointed to discover a Jesus Christ who does not live up to her lily-livered expectations of him should she actually crack open the New Testament. I shall be very interested to see evidence presented that “goodness, patience and love” are central to Christianity, not the belief in the Resurrection and acceptance of the lordship of Jesus Christ.

I mean, what religion doesn’t concern “goodness”? How can that concept possibly be central to any religion, given that the religion must define it? The puppies are now chasing their own tautological tails.

While I don’t know if God appreciates the irony of feminist sex slaves, He doesn’t exactly seem to be opposed to allowing people to experience the consequences of their actions. But if God can weep, presumably He can laugh as well, Dr. Eco’s doubts notwithstanding. Regardless, I don’t recall any evidence suggesting that Divine judgment rests upon exactly what one happens to find amusing, although it does suggest some interesting possibilities:

SAINT PETER: “How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?”
DEAD FEMINIST: “That’s not funny!”
SAINT PETER: “Oh, so you’ve heard that one….”
PRINCE SATAN: “Go on, tell her another, I’ve enough of the grim bitches already.”