Tim Tebow: The Boy Who Lived

6 02 2010

. . .destined to grow up as an example to us all. Of — um —

Are you ready for some football?
(Olympic Excess coming up next!)

We homeschooling families like learning at home in our living rooms, especially for free. You could even say we celebrate it! But you’re a Thinking Parent as well, so think about this — is “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” a sports message best taught on tv as multi-million dollar ad wars? Or is it paid political speech we’ve learned from real-world experience celebrates division and shooting to kill, the kind of combative warfare all learned people know that neither Christ nor America was ever about, despite false advertising through the ages?

What lessons are being taught in our living rooms, not by individual homeschooling parents or great literary characters like the Boy Who Lived but by corporate-controlled televised sports as entertainment, and is it sacred business, serious business, or funny business (if business has any business teaching any of us any of it?)

Our best entertainers and artists in any era help us conjure our own Patronus against the universally human fear of the dark.

Who in this story capitalizes, controls, one might even say conjures, this unarguably public education for which corporate America is unelected and unaccountable?

What if Tim Tebow had been born gay instead of gridiron-gifted? Would his mom still have been chosen for her choice to teach SuperBowl fans everywhere her ethics and how to define “family and life” worth celebrating? What if her unaborted son once grown to be a sports star, openly credited magic rather than miracles? Would he still have been chosen by CBS to dramatically break the network’s policy against advocacy ads mixed with hero worship? Is ignoring your doctor’s advice as Pam Tebow (and Sarah Palin) chose for themselves and apparently preach as mom gospel to everyone including the Supreme Court, a lesson CBS will be held accountable for as both profit-seeking and public broadcast system?

Here’s something your children will NOT learn about celebrating family and life watching the CBS SuperBowl:

“Women take decisions about their health very seriously. They consider their doctors’ advice, they talk with their loved ones and people they trust, including religious leaders, and they carefully weigh all considerations before making the best decision for themselves and their families.”

“My daughter will always be my little girl,” [the sports star] says. “But I am proud everyday as I watch her grow up to be her own person, a smart, confident young woman. I trust her to take care of herself. We celebrate families by supporting our mothers, by supporting our daughters. By trusting women.”

Upon which [the evil schoolmarm as minister of education] retorted tartly that students couldn’t be trusted to know what was good for them and they were a bunch of negative whiners . . .

Ethical? Educational? Christ-like? Good enough for your child at any age or stage?

Preparing for SuperBowl Sunday as a secular Gator up on cultural controversy, I’m reflecting on my own education through many years of bleeding orange and blue and watching UF sports, especially Tim Tebow as our most famous student-athlete ever. Yes, the most famous ever.

The Boy Who Lived has clearly surpassed even Steve Spurrier’s renown although the reasons seem murky and not merely statistical — perhaps because not even the most fanatical fan nor the SEC, the Heisman Committee or The Old Ball Coach himself, ever confused Steve Spurrier with Christ-like beatitude? 😉

I think my best self-learning on this subject was laid out in biblical allegory style, in What Should We Call Christ as a Kick in the Head? Tim has had his last on-field performance as a Gator for God but his first as a bought-and-paid-for shill airs tomorrow. I’ll let you know if it teaches me anything new . . .

What Should We Call Christ as a Kick in the Head?

Just drove Young Son to Irish dance and musical theatre. Their performing arts studio is in a neighborhood shopping center with a sandwich shop and pizza place, a chinese food restaurant, a small computer shop — and a huge, very busy martial arts place with big glass walls across the front so you can watch from the sidewalk or your car, called Karate for Christ Ministries.

I’ve waited for the kids and wondered about this incongruous pairing of east and west before. School football players in the South seem very well-educated if Christianity is the standard and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes is the measure. My favorite quarterback Gator Tim Tebow is always blessing the tv announcers and thanking his lord Jesus Christ for his touchdowns. His whole family goes on mission trips and he even convinced his coach to join him on one last summer. But school football and school religion are compatibly American — at least so I was taught — especially in the Bible Belt.

Karate though? For Christ?

So today as Spunky started a new conversation about what it means for a child to be “well-educated” I noticed it afresh and thought I’d mention some of what it makes me wonder, about what’s being taught and learned and why to our kids out of school, not in.

The phone number is painted on the glass, too: want your child well-educated in mind, body and spirit all at the same time? Who needs School OR Church? Just call 8-WE-KICK.

I called up wikipedia instead:

Hypothetically, any unarmed combat system could accurately be called “karate” since the Japanese phrase literally means “empty hand.” This is not necessarily an acceptable conclusion. To separate fact from fancy requires understanding issues of nationalism, lineage, primacy, and philosophy.

Open hand? Every time I go by, the little boys have long wooden rods in both hands, that they spin like batons and with which they energetically whack away at big dummies with men’s heads and karate clothes. There are as many attack dummies as pupils; does this mean anything, I wonder? (Are they rebelling against their own fathers, perhaps, or fighting their own future selves to avoid becoming their own worst enemy?)

Or is it more literal than that, are they all expecting to need to fight for their place in the world against the men who came before them? Or expecting a pre-ordained invasion force they’re being schooled to face, hmmm. . . whatever, it seems in karate a child could become well-educated in “nationalism, lineage, primacy and philosophy” but not linguistics or logic, because use of the open hand is not the idea at Karate for Christ. And philosophically, forget about the rod comforting or turning the other cheek. Nationalism? — well, I already asked if it fit with American tradition and I don’t see it. We shoot, we lynch, we box and race cars and play football.

Later each boy will spin himself in the air, leaping and kicking his personal menacing man-enemy-dummy in the head and solar plexus. Open foot maybe. Not open hand. And not very Christ-like from what I remember of my own Sunday School education, except I notice after they kick one side of the target head, they do turn (to kick) the other cheek.

Fencing was my own school sport of choice, and granted, swordfighting isn’t exactly Christlike either. But then I never said it was, nor did anyone I studied with, learned from or competed against (as far as I know.)

As Rachel Maddow says, does anyone want to talk me down from this? I’d ask Nance, whose unschooled son is an accomplished martial artist, but I don’t think religion east or west had anything to do with that. 😉

Reason may need a crash body-building course if it’s gonna face down the sand-kicking believing beach bullies. . .

I think Rowling’s genius is to see humans as carrying both hope and fear, both good and evil, to see us as magnificent, and animals, and facing new threats of extinction — to realize our ancient songs and stories need to be understood in progressively evolving ways, for anyone to win anything worth living or dying for.



34 responses

7 02 2010

If I had to guess, “the big dummies with men’s heads and karate clothes” are moneychangers in the temple, where Jesus showed righteous man-violence. Mixing it up with Nance’s reference to a recent Samantha Bee skit, Jesus was no effeminate “pusswad.” For boys in Christian karate (or summer Jesus camp) and grown men getting in touch with their inner anger at Christian men’s conferences – isn’t it mostly about preparing oneself for battle with the “pre-ordained invasion force they’re being schooled to face”?


Fencing was my own school sport of choice, and granted, swordfighting isn’t exactly Christlike either.

Au contraire 😉

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” ~Jesus (Matthew 10:34)

7 02 2010
Nance Confer

The only way religion is a part of my son’s training — he’s now, at 16, a 3rd degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, for those who know what that means and care 🙂 — is that his teacher is Catholic. Openly Catholic. But not obnoxiously so. So he runs a business in a Christian area (you can’t swing a cat without hitting a church) and is not shy to post a prayer on one of his walls. The prayer is a vaguely “protect this place and all who are in it” sort of thing. But he never includes prayer or preaching in class or even in conversation. He is extremely good at sizing up parents and talking to them where they are so maybe he talks to other people differently.

So, we are aware that Master B is a member of some Christian church. But that’s his business and it does not intrude on his class time with my son or anyone else’s child.

Which is what we kind of liked about the Tebows before this latest badly-handled PR stunt. We knew he was Christian. We got the under-the-eye blacked in numbers. But he was not obnoxious about it. He did good deeds. He was just a good force in the world who happened to have the religious angle as part of his personal history.

Now, though, it’s kind of sad. It feels like he and his mother are being used. Or she is using him. Or something like that.

This is just such a tacky way to move onto the professional phase of his life. So unnecessary. So desperate.

What a waste.


7 02 2010
Nance Confer

While it is nice to see the response above, what about that equal time doctrine? Why isn’t it airing during the Super Bowl? Doesn’t apply because it’s not a political ad? Pleeeease. Do networks even have that rule anymore? Or pro-choicers just can’t afford the ads? Or maybe YouTube will actually reach more people?


7 02 2010

I was thinking of the Crusades — how Lynn’s literary quotes from a book of life lessons got twisted to justify kings and knights adventuring out with swords drawn to kill for Christ, just as doctor killers and their macho tv “goaders-into” use it today to keep us fighting and killing each other at home over, ironically, the pro-life message, and foreign heathens in the Middle East over whatever patriotic power fits the election cycle. All in the advertised name of God and Country of course.

The crusading knights became brethren and didn’t kill each other when they could be united as Christian soldiers against the common enemy way on the other end of the field of play, and all come home as heroes.

Hmmm, Eleanor of Aquitaine in this story would play the Madonna-Pam Tebow-Sarah Palin role, mysterious giver of righteous-man-life who then is left with all that value hidden away in some turreted tower draped with tapestry while the lesser but literally en-titled men slug it out between themselves. Or the mysterious Da Vinci Code allusions to Mary Magdalene as beloved by Christ himself because unlike his other disciples she had that literal life-giving power . . . In a culture where giving life to righteous men is the only real power allowed to smart, strong women who otherwise incur the wrath of all those righteous men, of COURSE there’s a war between the sexes and women fight it with sex (and life-giving.)

But that’s not the way it was in Harry Potter, nor at UF. The institution Tim Tebow grew up revering and represents so famously in football isn’t a traditional southern school making women channel their power through bible verse so men won’t treat them like Joan of Arc for daring to be righteous with a sword . . . you know, if I thought anyone but us would actually think about all this instead of being kicked around and cut off from human reality by it, it could be such a good lesson. But that’s pretty hard to have faith in.

I see now what a strong southern river runs through my list . . . 🙂
Also without planning it or noticing, I see my female authors have the edge, 5-4.

And there’s the “home” thing, with Scarlett needing Tara as the home that sustained her through war and the loss of everyone she’d ever loved, Patchett’s proclivity to set her books at home, and Lee’s Scout learning to read at home from watching her dad absorbed in reading the newspaper at home. Max coming HOME to his very own room, where he found his supper waiting for him, and it was still hot!

Probably this historical fiction reflects “home” as theme too, if we think of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Pimpernel and Ragtime’s characters all leaving home either to defend home, extend home, or create a new home?

From Ragtime’s “Journey On”:

Is that other ship going back home?

No, no. America is our home now.
America is our shtetl.

7 02 2010

Just occurred to me there’s another whole angle to the learning-from-Tebow-worship: college career prep.

The University of Florida has had three Heisman quarterbacks, acclaimed on tv with corporate sponsorship as the best in college football, yet none of these (Spurrier, Wuerffel, Tebow) was great or even “successful” in that same role professionally.

What kind of college program is that, then? What lessons should we learn from the best of the college best not actually BEING the best-educated and prepared for their chosen field? That the gods are perverse and fame for its own sake pays better than quality and merit so the only real lesson of value is how to market yourself, that we’re all playthings who shouldn’t plan our own lives (Hannity said this on my radio recently, hmmm) — is THAT the life lesson behind all anti-abortion preaching, that we shouldn’t trust ourselves to think and decide, so no need to learn to make better choices from learned doctors and professors?

That you’re being taught a righteous load of hero worship hooey?

if we had faith in reason, we might acknowledge the angriest, most publicly religious, self-righteous men and women are being richly rewarded in the real world, for believing that’s how god wants it . . .

7 02 2010

Something else just came to mind: the story symmetry of human characters believing both that Tim’s earthly mother chose life for her son, and that Tim’s heavenly father chose death for his own son. And that both were above reason or reproach and though contradictory are the same lesson about family and life, and to be celebrated, by responsible parents but with the faith of a child . . .

7 02 2010

Sarah Palin’s level of learning is that she believes herself clever to parse differences between the same word (the infamous R-word) used by men she needs (filthy rich southern conservatives) versus men in her way (damn Yankees!) but she literally confuses the words fingertips and fingerprints without a thought in her head, fiddle-dee-dee [tossing that pretty little head and winking] . . .

Palin said: “I have no idea how conventionally people [run for the White House]. How they open a door that perhaps isn’t even open. … I don’t know how any of that stuff works. I’m just appreciative of having some good information at my fingerprints now.”

Equally uneducated and money-obsessed, family-careless Scarlett O’Hara made more common sense than this! It isn’t just misspeaking, it’s gibberish — surely the only kind of door that can be opened by even an R-word, in any way whatsoever, is one that isn’t already open!?

Good thing she wasn’t offered one of those non-political anti-abortion spots for the SuperBowl, as back-up to (Pam) Tebow. But every citizen of Gator Nation knows how to say wait’ll next year. Who knows what doors might be opened by Palin’s outrageously ignorant and self-serving idea of god, human goodness, fate or witchcraft or whatever; as long as she keeps running up the score by her own rules and calls herself the winner. . .

She was healthy, headstrong, unrefined, a minimally educated young woman with a very sharp tongue, getting by with her natural resources — breathtaking beauty and carefully cultivated feminine wiles. Scarlett produced several beautiful children not because she had any real choice or felt called to “actual” mothering as her own life purpose, but because it was inevitable in her society.

Lucky for her and her ruthless pursuit of money and power and control out in the business world among men, then, that in that old-fashioned life, she had ample family and social resources at her disposal through which she could avoid bearing many “actual responsibilities” of active motherhood herself.

Living large the unexamined life, as it wreaks havoc on everyone else’s life.

She was the still most popular girl in three counties. . . fictional but that doesn’t mean her story is a lie . . .

7 02 2010

Was that IT??
The whole ad?

There was no there there, did you see it too? So let’s think about that: either Nance is right and CBS wrote it for them, or there were several and the least possibly offensive was all CBS would run, or else this was quite a pre-marketing marketing plan by design and/or dumb luck.

(Adding CBS story link Monday morning)

7 02 2010

Well, I didn’t mean to suggest that the network wrote the ad. I was thinking there was a “helpful” pastor or religious org behind the scenes.

But now I have an FU parent writing me to vote for the Tebow ad in some sort of online poll.

I responded that I am pro-choice and thought the ad was a bad idea and she proceeded to try to change my mind!

I thought that was quite rude! The emailing didn’t go well after that.

Maybe she needs to find a school other than my umbrella school. . .

At any rate, is that part of the marketing? Getting people to vote for the ad in some poll?

I think I hear dessert calling. . . 🙂


7 02 2010

“I can remember so many times when I almost lost him,” Pam Tebow said in describing her pregnancy.

After watching The Who’s halftime medley wondering how old they were now, we wikipedia-ed Roger Daltry only to find the Tebow ad should’ve been HIS unlikely life story as told by HIS mother (maybe the scripts got mixed up?):

Losing kidneys and giving birth during Nazi air raids? By choice? 😉

Irene Daltrey was told she would be unable to have children because of losing a kidney in 1937. Nevertheless, she went into labour during a World War II air raid and gave birth to her son at the nearby Hammersmith Hospital, West London. At the age of three, the young Roger swallowed a rusty nail which had to be surgically removed, leaving a visible scar. At the age of five, the rust from the nail caused an ulcer in his stomach which required him to be hospitalised.

7 02 2010

Favorite Daughter thought Pam Tebow looked like Mary Steenbergen — maybe we could all agree to vote for that. Or that this year the game itself is better than the halftime show and most of the ads! I guess I’d vote for Underwear Casual Friday or Bud Light on the desert island for plane-crash survivors, but the rest of my gathered family liked the updated McDonald’s ad with Larry Bird best.

7 02 2010

Wait, wait! The Google love story ad just aired! It celebrates family, celebrates life AND celebrates learning!!!

Our unanimous new CHOICE . . .

8 02 2010

A new column at Killing the Buddha, about one of the books I’m partway through from the stack by my bed:

. . .[Former Catholic nun and religious historian Karen] Armstrong is right that we all seek a deeper meaning behind our lives. Yet merely glorifying our ignorance by professing awe at some “ultimate mystery” or ascribing the patent injustices of the world to “God’s will,” which no one can truly fathom anyway, doesn’t seem like a very enlightened approach.

Nor is it intellectually honest; contrary to her assertions, religions do make empirical claims. Was the universe created, or is it self-created? Is there a supernatural being to whom we are morally responsible? Is there life after death? All these are questions that demand some basis in fact, not merely “allegorical” merit.

Or maybe not. It’s folly, Armstrong says, to expect religion to “provide us with information. Is there a God? How did the world come into being? But this is a modern aberration.” Let’s say she’s right. Yet if religion should not be expected to say even whether God exists, what “case” is there for Him?

8 02 2010

And that led me to this, about the American Ideal of constitutionally protected free choice of what to learn and believe, or not:

The intent is not what’s in question; most of us understand that the Continental Congress sought to separate church and state while ensuring the freedom to worship. Yet the implications of such a balancing act continue to elude us.

If a criminal case can be legally dismissed on the basis of religious expression, or a victim of religiously motivated assault can be awarded a greater cash settlement under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, or a church can enjoy federal tax exemptions, or a school board can successfully lobby for the inclusion of theistic language in the Pledge of Allegiance, it may make sense to question whether we are honoring freedom or simply inflating privilege.

The underlying paradox is that religion itself is not always freely chosen but rather imposed, and as such may subvert the very right to intellectual autonomy that the amendment was written to protect.

A child born into a family of fundamentalists, for instance, is sheltered not only from the facts of history and science but also the world of progressive ideas writ large.

This kind of sheltering does not only apply to fringe faiths and religious hard-liners. Indeed, any modern belief system that teaches scripture as fact is infringing upon the rights of young people to develop a sense of reality unobstructed by myths, superstitions and laws written at a time when slavery and death by stoning were considered morally acceptable. . .

Everyone seems to believe in the mom’s choice being imposed, just not at the same time. Fundamentalists like Palin (and Pam Tebow? Can’t tell from what actually aired) want no parental or family choice or privacy rights until after birth, but absolute autonomy after that to dictate and dominate the child’s world both inner and outer. Religion on demand for parents! — never mind the child’s constitutional rights.

This makes me wonder what would happen if the anti-abortion idea of codifying full rights of personhood and American citizenship for zygotes and fetuses ever happens. Then how do you take it back when the child is two and you want to hit it with a stick like a subhuman domestic until it does what you want, or when the child is fourteen and denounces your church or is sixteen and becomes sexually active with more fully entitled but unborn persons you can’t control springing into being against the will of THEIR parents?

8 02 2010

Secular Homeschool picked up one of my pre-Snook essays that fits:

Teaching My Own “Faith” to My Kids

Religion is Story and so is everything else the human mind can conceive or believe. Amen.

We’re not much for church or school, but we live for Story (doesn’t everybody somehow or another?) Musical theatre, libraries, bookshops and movies are our personal venues of worship, the wellsprings of story through which my family lives and learns and engages ideas and cultures. . . .

8 02 2010

I for one am glad that Pam Tebow was able to exercise her choice to continue with a risky pregnancy.

What? Wasn’t that the point of the ad?

8 02 2010

Not to mention Irene Daltry!

But not because they had celebrity sons I enjoy in the entertainment industry. I’m just as glad Barack Obama’s mom (the atheist anthropologist helping impoverished rural women in Indonesia to have a little more economic choice) had the choice to marry outside of her race not long after the Loving decision finally recognized that as protected family choice (in a state that STILL doesn’t recognize full civil rights for atheists though?) and use her Ph.D. and raise her son without his father, as she saw fit — despite the fact that his father’s many other wives apparently had no such choice and bore many, many children because of ignorance and poverty that kept the children coming and all the doors closed.

8 02 2010

Btw, did you see that incredibly feel-good shot of Daddy Drew Brees with his little baby boy wearing the protective earphones, and notice how their blue eyes looked alike and filled the screen with parental love and pride?

It made me remember somewhat sheepishly that this one football game (unlike most I’ve cared about and watched in recent years) was NOT about Tim Tebow in any way, shape or form! 😉

8 02 2010

HA! Great minds . . .I just saw COD’s SuperBowl family values post.

8 02 2010
Nance Confer

Yes, Chris, as I pointed out to the rude emailer yesterday. Choice is what we want. You make your choice and I’ll make mine.

Thank you for getting it. 🙂


9 02 2010
Crimson Wife

Had I been able to murder my DH’s old investment banking boss without legal consequences for doing so, it probably would’ve been very beneficial to my mental health. The guy was a flaming a****** and that plus the 80-100+ hour workweeks resulted in an insanely stressed DH, which in turn made me miserable. But it still would’ve been morally wrong.

Abortion is no more a “health decision” than murdering the jerk boss would’ve been. The only difference is that under current U.S. law, the former is legal while the latter typically results in 25 years-to-life.

9 02 2010

The ONLY difference? Sure you want to go with that? (Some people who hear moral complexity argued in that binary, reductionist way wind up literally believing it and in turn justify murdering a grown man in cold blood if the business he’s bossing is a private full service women’s health clinic.)

9 02 2010


Some people who hear moral complexity argued in that binary, reductionist way wind up literally believing it and in turn justify murdering …

Yes, if abortion really *is* the equivalent of the Nazi Holocaust, it just doesn’t make moral sense to just sit back and wait for a chance Supreme Court appointment to make “mass murder” illegal, all while millions of “innocents” are “exterminated.” The “pro-life” rhetoric really poses a problem for those who try to be consistent. (My criticism is general and not aimed at CW.)

10 02 2010

Yes, I was thinking a more apt analogy both factually and morally (though still full of holes) would have been if CW’s husband’s boss had stressed him into an ulcer or perhaps an aneurysm or tumor of some sort, that threatened his own life unless it were to be removed?

Or we could adapt bioethics expert Hilde Lindemann’s moral analogy of compelling women to carry pregnancies to term, about men being obliged to risk their own body and future to save another human life by sacrificing a kidney on demand. The living tissue they carry within themselves has the potential to do that, at similar risk to the host life of pregnancy to give life, and the current state of law is that it is legal — and moral — to choose the gift of life but not legal (nor moral?) to compel that sacrifice against the giver’s choice.

I’m going to plead for a revised understanding of what pregnancy is. It’s when we think of pregnancy as something that happens to a woman rather than something she does – when we think of pregnant bodies as flowerpots, ovens, or incubators – that the awfulness of the particular kind of wrong about to be done to South Dakota women escapes our notice.

. . .If the South Dakota legislature is really serious about saving lives, it might consider distributing the gender burden more evenly by enacting a law that forces all able-bodied men to donate a kidney to someone who will die without one. That way they too would have to do something with their bodies to support someone else’s life–something a little like the creative and purposeful work that women do when they sustain a pregnancy.

When that law is passed, and when women are no longer abused by social arrangements that favor men, then we can revisit this particular kind of specific performance. Until then, it’s hard to see the proposed bans on abortion as anything other than a gender-biased form of state-imposed slavery.

10 02 2010

BTW Nance, not to creep you out or anything but did you notice, in Snook’s search terms yesterday was this:
“nance confer, pro-choice athiest” [sic]

Think it was your rude emailer?

10 02 2010

“Health decisions” are not only about mental health.

But, even if that’s the only kind of health you want to consider, CW, in your DH’s case he had several choices. And I’m sure that, eventually and possibly with your urging, he chose one of them.

Or he could have continued in his awful situation, not only stressing you out, but probably becoming a very bad employee and very bad for his customers/investors.

Which is, unfortunately, the choice that too many “mothers” make.

No, JJ, I didn’t know about that search. I don’t generally check those things. Sounds like someone with too much time on their hands.


10 02 2010

he could have continued in his awful situation, not only stressing you out, but probably becoming a very bad employee and very bad for his customers/investors.

Now more than ever, since SCOTUS recast the Constitution to bestow personhood with full human rights on corporations, never mind its real-world effects on real humans who will be subjugated to that fiction. So the day draws closer, that her real-person DH could be legally forced to serve in a health-threatening job because the corporation “needs” him and has more political clout than any individual, and the independent political voice uniting individuals as one “corporate” body to self-govern, has been declared immoral.

The part that makes no sense is confusing that with anything conservative, libertarian, democratic or Christian.

10 02 2010
Nance Confer

I was thinking of child abuse as a consequence of imposed pregnancy but, yes, I suppose white mail investment bankers could become slaves too.


10 02 2010
Nance Confer

male 🙂

Or is there such a thing as “white mail?”


10 02 2010

I like it! There’s “white noise” so why not “white mail”?

Check out these definitions as white mail/male:

“white noise is a good masking agent”

“the intensity is the same at all frequencies within a given band”

“White noise has a flat power spectral density”

“People find the addition of this comfort noise to be reassuring at mild levels [but] white noise can overwhelm an audio signal or cause bit errors in a data transmission.”

10 02 2010

Speaking of white males and their flat power spectral density subjugating women:

She had really pretty blue eyes. It’s all so discouraging that she, and Anita Bryant and someone like Andrea Yates even, can in the modern world after all our progress as humankind, nevertheless get sucked down into that patriarchal mumbo-jumbo world and become a caricature and a cautionary tale . . .

14 02 2010

re: Karate though? For Christ?

Hi JJ,

I just stumbled upon Fight Church and remembered your post related to this topic.

14 02 2010

Aaaahhhhhhhh! Look to Lynn for the strange stuff!

13 09 2011
“Partisan Polarization” Just Another Pathology of Hypercompetition? « Cocking A Snook!

[…] “How you play the game” isn’t much of a consolation prize for the defeated even wh… “Living well as the best revenge” only adds insult to injury in forced competition that puts your health, wealth, dignity, liberty and life itself at risk. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: