So, what’s up with Brian Williams?

The New Neo Posted on by

capitano

First, a disclaimer: I don’t know what caused Brian Williams to lie about his helicopter experience in Iraq, and I don’t know what caused him to continue the lie. The lie was egregious, repeated, and seemingly reckless.

Seemingly reckless, because why would he think he could get away with it? There were witnesses there who could correct the record. And yet he must not have been so very reckless after all, because after all it took twelve years for the people who knew the truth to finally have had enough of his braggadocio and to expose him.

So one thing that probably was going on with Williams was a sense of entitlement and impunity. Who would dare correct him, and would they be believed?

Williams’ lie is no ordinary one. But it is of a surprisingly common type, and it even has a name: il Capitano, or the braggart soldier, one of the stock figures in commedia dell’arte, as Roger Simon referenced years ago in connection with John Kerry. There seems to be a longstanding compulsion on the part of some people to either embellish or make up from the whole cloth events of military derring-do in their lives that actually never happened. Williams most definitely appears to have succumbed to that temptation:

Il Capitano often talks at length about made up conquests of both the militaristic and carnal nature in attempts to impress others, but often only ends up impressing himself. He gets easily carried away in his tales and doesn’t realise when those around him don’t buy his act.

Well, I guess it doesn’t fit too well, because those around Williams—which includes the viewing public—bought his act. Apparently it was very convincing (disclaimer: I don’t watch network news, so I never saw it and until yesterday I can’t say I paid much attention to who Williams was), because it seems to have been widely accepted as the truth until now.

So my guess is that Williams’ motivation to lie was the same as that of anyone who chooses to go the route of il Capitano: stolen valor, stolen glory. It ought to have been enough for him that he went to Iraq in the midst of a war, but I guess it wasn’t.

I’m not at all sure of what I’m about to say, but I think it at least possible that at some point Williams may have come to believe his lie. I don’t know at what point that happened (if in fact it did happen), but repetition of a story can sometimes do that with people whose attachment to the truth is tenuous at best. By the time his story was exposed as a lie, Williams may have been genuinely shocked that it wasn’t true. At any rate, he certainly must have been shocked that the truth was revealed after all these years of getting away with the lie.

But not shocked enough to actually level with us; even in his apology he is lying. The guy appears to be a pathological and compulsive liar.

The question now is: what next? NBC should fire him, of course, and issue a public apology. Many people have predicted that’s what will happen, and I don’t see much defense of him so far in the press or in comments around the blogosphere. But so far (unless I’m missing something), NBC has been mum. I wouldn’t be surprised if Williams kept his job, although I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if he got the boot, and rather soon.

Iraq: hard-won gains squandered

The New Neo Posted on by

I think this comment at Hot Air on a thread about ISIS burning the Jordanian pilot is of particular interest:

That ISIS IS the same crowd is exhibit two billion and seven of the morally bankrupt media who refused to report these atrocities at the time, and vindication for those of us who said during the Iraq war that this was NOT just a sectarian war, that we WERE killing terrorists in Iraq, and anyone attempting to draw a moral equivalence between what the American military was doing versus the barbarism of our enemy is unworthy of inclusion in any discussion between intelligent adults. On our worst day we’re a thousand times better than they are. But we haven’t been allowed to say that, much less draw the necessary proofs to demonstrate it.

If the American people had known at the time that THIS is the face of the enemy, maybe we could’ve pulled that last bit of determination to finish the job. Instead the American people were drummed out of the war by their own media and we have lost everything we fought for. I can’t even begin to convey to you what it’s like to see pictures of the damned ISIS flag over Ramadi and Fallujah. I was THERE. The people ISIS is killing are the people who, by and large, supported us. They warned American troops about IEDs and ambushes, and we abandoned them. I don’t even have words to tell you how furious I am about that. We could’ve finished the job, if the truth had been reported.

Well, there’s the truth. A man burned alive in a cage while terrorists hopped up on meth, hash, and coke chant religious verses and watch him burn. THAT is the enemy. They have already done that, and WORSE, to Americans.

New generation, meet the old generation—the Vietnam vets who had to watch all they’d fought for get thrown away in the 70s. Except that, bad as that was, what’s happening in Iraq is worse. This time we pretty much had it under control (of course, many people say that was true in Vietnam, too, by the mid-70s). And this time the enemy is intent on coming to our shores. In fact, al Qaeda had already done so even before the Iraq or Afghan wars began.

[NOTE: Discussion of Vietnam, Iraq, and terrorism got me to thinking back to this field execution photo. The more things change, the more they remain the same.]

Why does this start to sound familiar?

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz, who said she’d been raped, the university administration had dealt with it wrongly by exonerating the accused, and that therefore she was going to carry a mattress around on her back as an art project to publicize the outrage until the accused either was dismissed from Columbia or left voluntarily?

Cathy Young has written an extensive and explosive article on the case that has appeared in The Daily Beast. Read it.

The facts are quite different from the UVA rape Rolling Stone story. For example, in the Sulkowicz incident, there is no doubt that the accused exists. His name is Paul Nungesser, and he tells his story in Young’s article. There is also no doubt that sexual contact between Sulkowicz and Nungesser occurred on several occasions, and that some of it was consensual.

But some of the takeaway from the case is similar:

Journalism has become propaganda; the coverage of the Sulkowicz case has hardly been fair and balanced.

Colleges should not be adjudicating rape charges. Rape charges need to go through the police.

In these areas of consent given and then withdrawn, the truth is fiendishly difficult to determine, and it will almost always be a he-said she-said situation.

Women do sometimes lie. Men sometimes lie. What else is new?

Our race-politics-obsessed president

The New Neo Posted on by

President Obama sees everything through the prism of race combined with whatever political advantage he can obtain from the use of race in his rhetoric.

Thus, an early political utterance (June, 2008) emphasized his race and insinuated that his opponents were obsessed with it and would make use of it to harm him, when they hadn’t done anything of the sort. He stirs up race consciousness while pretending to deflect and reject it, and manufactures it if it hasn’t occurred:

Barack Obama, the candidate who wants to end divisiveness, and who wants to run a clean and honorable campaign without negativity, said the following in a recent campaign speech at a Florida fund-raising reception:

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

We have here a truly masterful attempt to flames of paranoia on the part of his followers and adopt the mantle of victimization for himself, thus raising rather than lowering the amount of divisiveness and vitriol in the campaign. Pretty good for just a couple of sentences…

In the final sentence of the paragraph he slyly encourages a phenomenon I’ve noticed happening more and more: the charge that any criticism of Obama emanates from racism. If the racism isn’t overt and clear, as in the emails, then it’s covert; “inexperience” (a valid concern based on the objective facts of his history) becomes a code word (wink wink) for hidden racism and fearmongering.

This is dangerous demagoguery…

No, it turns out that most of them haven’t mentioned he’s black, except in approving terms. But they don’t have to nowadays to be racists; Obama has taken care of that.

I wrote that in June of 2008, and I see no reason to change a word of it. That’s the Obama we’ve all come to know. That’s the m.o. that has held him in good stead for a long, long time.

Which brings us to the latest manifestation of the genre. This one was reported by David Axelrod in his new memoir, but he’s not only quoting Obama, it is also highly likely the release of this information was approved by Obama. After all, never miss an opportunity to paint a Republican as racist, even if that Republican has already pulled out of the 2016 race (which Romney hadn’t yet done when the book was written).

Here it is:

President Obama was shocked and irritated by Mitt Romney’s concession call in the 2012 presidential election””and claimed Romney insinuated that Obama won only by getting out the black vote, according to a new book by presidential campaign strategist David Axelrod.

Obama was “unsmiling during the call, and slightly irritated when it was over,” Axelrod writes.

The president hung up and said Romney admitted he was surprised at his own loss, Axelrod wrote.

“‘You really did a great job of getting the vote out in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee,’ in other words, black people,'” Obama said, paraphrasing Romney. “That’s what he thinks this was all about.”

Even in the flush of victory Obama is petulant, spiteful, race-obsessed, blaming.

But beyond that, there are other interesting aspects to this story. Does Obama not admit that part of his victory was his success in getting out the black vote? I thought that was understood, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with it. When a candidate has over 90% support from a demographic group, it behooves that candidate to do his/her best to get those people to the polls. None of this is any kind of secret to anyone who knows the first thing about politics in the US and the 2012 election in particular.

But are “Cleveland” and “Milwaukee” code words for “black”? Not in my book; perhaps in Obama’s, but then in Obama’s everything that could be said about Obama is a code word for “black.”

But since my knowledge of the demography of those two cities is not exactly cutting edge I decided to look it up. Cleveland’s population breakdown is 53.3% black, high but nothing like some others. In fact, if you look at this chart, Cleveland is surpassed by many many other US cities in its black population (its rank is #17), and its percentage of blacks in the metropolitan area (as opposed to city proper) is only 20%. If you wanted to talk about getting out the black vote, there are many many other cities from which to choose (Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, for starters).

As for Milwaukee, it’s almost laughable as an example of a code word for “black.” It’s not on any of the lists of cities with a high percentage of black people or with a high number of black people. It’s 40% black within the city limits (27% for Milwaukee County).

If a person wanted to use code for “black cities,” he/she would do well to mention one of these 25 instead.

But of course that’s not what Romney was doing. Does Obama know that? Is he really that racially paranoid? Or was he just using it for political advantage? My guess is that yes, he really is that racially paranoid, and he likes to use it for political advantage.

Prosecutor Nisman had drafted arrest warrants for Kirchner and Timerman

The New Neo Posted on by

For those of you who’ve been following the death [murder] of Argentinian prosecutor Alberto Nisman, this is significant news:

Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor whose mysterious death has gripped Argentina, had drafted a request for the arrest of President Cristina Ferné¡ndez de Kirchner, accusing her of trying to shield Iranian officials from responsibility in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center here, the lead investigator into his death said Tuesday.

The 26-page document, which was found in the garbage at Mr. Nisman’s apartment, also sought the arrest of Héctor Timerman, Argentina’s foreign minister. Both Mrs. Kirchner and Mr. Timerman have repeatedly denied Mr. Nisman’s accusation that they tried to reach a secret deal with Iran to lift international arrest warrants for Iranian officials wanted in connection with the bombing…

Some legal experts suspect that Mr. Nisman decided against requesting the arrest of Mrs. Kirchner because such a move would have been viewed as a political attack on the president in a case that had already polarized the nation.

Moreover, Mrs. Kirchner and Mr. Timerman have immunity as members of the executive branch. They could have been arrested only if a judge handling the case were to authorize a political trial similar to an impeachment process and ask Congress to lift their immunity, Ms. Ciruzzi said.

Two judges have refused to take the case put forward by Mr. Nisman, raising the possibility that his criminal complaint could languish in Argentina’s legal system if another judge is not found to continue it. A federal chamber is expected to decide who should take the case.

It wouldn’t be surprising if no one wanted to touch this case at this point.

[NOTE: More at Fausta’s, including this.]

ISIS atrocity; Jordan responds

The New Neo Posted on by

ISIS has released a video showing the murder of the Jordanian pilot they had captured. Instead of beheading, they burned him alive in a cage.

In response, Jordan announced that tomorrow it would make good on its threat to execute Sajida al-Rishawi, a female terrorist imprisoned in that country, as well as other captives “who attacked Jordan’s interests.”

This is not some tit-for-tat extra-judicial revenge slaying. Rishawi and the other four have been under sentence of death for quite some time, but their cases have been moving slowly through the appeals process there. It is that latter process that has been ended sooner rather than later.

Most of the articles about Rishawi call her a “would-be” suicide bomber. Hardly. She was actually an attempted suicide bomber whose suicide vest malfunctioned, while her husband’s fully-functioning vest managed to kill 38 of the 60 people murdered by terrorists in the Amman hotel bombings of 2005 (it would have been more, had Rishawi had her way):

At the Radisson SAS Hotel (now known as the “Landmark Hotel”), two suicide bombers (a husband and wife team””Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari and Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi)””entered the Philadelphia Ballroom, where Ashraf Akhras and his bride, Nadia Al-Alami, were celebrating their wedding with around 900 Jordanian and Palestinian guests. Sajida al-Rishawi was unable to detonate her belt. Her husband Ali al-Shamari, apparently admonished her and told her to get out of the room. As she was leaving, the lights went out in the ballroom, Ali jumped onto a dining-room table and detonated himself. Among the 38 people killed in the explosion were the fathers of the bride and groom.

As for Jordanian pilot Moaz Kasaesbeh, his murder apparently occurred a month ago. But that didn’t stop ISIS from pretending he was still alive, in order to try to bargain with Jordan for Rishawi. “The deal fell through after the jihadists were unable to provide Jordan with proof of life of the pilot…” Now we know why they had so much trouble doing that—he was already murdered.

The videotape was apparently only in Arabic; no English subtitles, which has led analysts to believe that this particular message is mainly for the Arab world. Jordan’s reply:

“Jordan’s response will be earth-shattering,” Information Minister Mohammed Momani said earlier on television, while the army and government vowed to avenge the pilot’s murder.

“Whoever doubted the unity of the Jordanian people, we will prove them wrong,” said Momani, who is also government spokesman.

[NOTE:Obama, of course, would have released Rishawi and the four others for Bowe Bergdahl.]

[UPDATE 10:37 PM: Two of the executions have occurred. The identities of the prisoners are reported to be Rishawi and Ziyad Karboli, an Iraqi member of al Qaeda who was convicted of murdering a Jordanian in 2008.]

Ballet dancers and pointe shoes

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an article on the laborious and idiosyncratic complexity of the relationship between pointe shoes and the ballet dancer. The shoes are hand-made (and for professional ballet dancers, custom-made) but they are not worn as is. There is a lengthy process of personal shoe preparation that varies from dancer to dancer but is absolutely necessary in order to perform.

When you watch ballet, it’s probably something you don’t think about; perhaps it’s best that it remain that way. But I find it fascinating, having been through my own version of it, although long long ago.

In fact, I used to dream about pointe shoes quite often back when I was dancing. I would dream I had found a new brand and put them on, and suddenly I could spin and balance with enormous precision and flair. I had found my magic and transformative shoes!

[NOTE: I’ve written about pointe shoes before, here.]

Another depressing poll

The New Neo Posted on by

Ah, those young people:

Are you between the ages of 18-34? Can you name one ”” just one ”” of your home state’s senators?

Congrats! You did better than more than three-fourths of people your age. That’s right ”” 77 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds in the new survey could not name even one US senator in their home state.

I wrote “young people,” but I was being a little bit sarcastic. Eighteen is young. Is thirty-four? No. Somewhere in-between those two ages a person ceases to have any excuse at all for such profound ignorance (not that there’s really all that much excuse at 18 either).

Most of these same people favor Hillary Clinton for president, as well. That is no surprise either. At least they know her name.

More unsurprising results of the poll:

Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed said government is “helpful,” compared with just 18 percent who called it “harmful.”

I’d like to see a breakdown of the answers by political party, but the poll doesn’t provide it.

Okay, here we go again: on loving Rita

The New Neo Posted on by

“Groundhog Day” keeps stirring up the opportunity to opine on life and love. So here we go—again…

Commenter “Gary” observed:

Neo wrote:
There is no suggestion that anyone else in the movie is perfect, or near-perfect, or anything of the sort, including Rita!

I disagree, Neo. No one is supposed to be perfect, but IMHO Rita really should be (and I think was intended to be) a much, much more inspiring woman, the ultimate spark that finally frees Phil from his purgatory. Near the end of the film, Phil gives this heartfelt speech about how kind and wonderful and life-changing this woman is.

But instead, all we ever see”“in a rare instance of poor writing”“is a pretty bland, trite, lackluster Rita, and Andi MacDowell doing her wooden, mediocre best.
””””-

So I’m somewhat in agreement with Director Mitch, though I don’t think she’s quite that boring:

She is a bit vapid, hasn’t grown at all during this time, and quite frankly I don’t see why he (or any man quite frankly) would find her interesting at all.

Gary, you and I will have to disagree then, because I really disagree—not so much with your characterization of Rita’s relative blandness, but with your entire premise.

You see, Phil loves Rita. And that’s not because he or she is an enlightened being; he even loves her (or at the very least has a strong attraction to her that is more than the lust he also feels for her) before the spell traps him in a recurring loop of time. He just doesn’t know how to love her—or how to love anyone.

Rita is not the point. Rita is not meant to be “a much, much more inspiring woman, the ultimate spark that finally frees Phil from his purgatory.” That would in fact be the opposite of the movie’s message. Rita does nothing. And you are right, neither Rita nor anyone else but Phil changes in the movie, except within the confines of the one day (and of course at the very end, when Phil finally goes forward into the next day).

Rita is inspiring only because Phil happens to like and then to love her. Rita is nice rather than incredibly witty or fascinating, or spectacularly anything. We are meant to like her (see the “Gosh, you’re an upbeat lady!” scene), and of course she’s also a very pretty woman in a natural fresh-faced way—although not the most gorgeous woman in the world.

But the point is love, not Rita as an object exceptionally worthy of love. For whatever reason, Ria happens to be the person Phil happens to love. So his task is to learn what that word actually means, not just in the romantic sense but in the broadest sense, and not just with Rita as object but with the world as object. That is what gives the movie its profundity, a depth it would lack if Rita was some sort of “ultimate spark” that “frees Phil from his purgatory.” Only Phil can do that, and the process by which it occurs is far more complex and far more complete and far-reaching than Rita herself—however charmingly or attractively or fascinatingly she might have been portrayed—could have ever engendered.

How often, when you see a couple madly in love with each other, do you look at them and wonder “what does he/her see in him/her?” Often, I bet. Very few people are so universally appealing and wonderful that everyone is in love with them. Love is idiosyncratic and particular. Why him? Why her? Who knows, half the time. There are usually more exemplary and fascinating people one could find on earth, but that’s not the point. The point is knowing how to love this particular, flawed, sometimes boring, human being.

How Obama views Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

We often talk about Obama’s approach to Iran, offering theories that run the gamut from “fool” to “knave” to various combinations of the two.

Here’s an excellent article by Michael Doran in Mosaic that fleshes out the details of a theory of Obama/Iran. It doesn’t take the most extreme stance of all—which would be the “Obama is a secret Muslim Iranian sympathizer who wants America and Israel destroyed” theory—but the piece’s premise is extremely credible and it is well worth taking the time to read in its entirety.

It’s a bit difficult to summarize, but the article makes several points. The first two are that much of Obama’s approach focuses on his deep contempt for Bush and his deep desire to differentiate himself entirely from him (this is something I’ve long thought), as well as Obama’s penchant for secrecy. There’s much more:

During the Bush years, an elaborate myth had developed according to which the mullahs in Tehran had themselves reached out in friendship to Washington, offering a “grand bargain”: a deal on everything from regional security to nuclear weapons. The swaggering Bush, however, had slapped away the outstretched Iranian hand, squandering the opportunity of a lifetime…

Obama based his policy of outreach to Tehran on two key assumptions of the grand-bargain myth: that Tehran and Washington were natural allies, and that Washington itself was the primary cause of the enmity between the two. If only the United States were to adopt a less belligerent posture, so the thinking went, Iran would reciprocate. In his very first television interview from the White House, Obama announced his desire to talk to the Iranians, to see “where there are potential avenues for progress.” Echoing his inaugural address, he said, “[I]f countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”

Unfortunately, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, ignored the president’s invitation…

Because, of course, the entire thing was a myth.

Did Obama actually believe the myth? Your answer to that depends on how you answer that old, old “knave vs. fool” question. But I can practically guarantee you that many of Obama’s liberal advisors and aides believed it and believe it still, and that they are fools—otherwise known as “useful idiots.”

Later developments forced Obama’s hand—for a while:

In 2010, [Obama] signed into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), which eventually would prove more painful to Iran than any previous measure of its kind.

In later years, whenever Obama would stand accused of being soft on Iran, he would invariably point to CISADA as evidence to the contrary. “[O]ver the course of several years,” he stated in March 2014, “we were able to enforce an unprecedented sanctions regime that so crippled the Iranian economy that they were willing to come to the table.” The “table” in question was the negotiation resulting in the November 2013 agreement, known as the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), which we shall come to in due course. But masked in the president’s boast was the fact that he had actually opposed CISADA, which was rammed down his throat by a Senate vote of 99 to zero…

Obama’s heart was not in it, to say the least. “For Obama, to force a confrontation with Khamenei would destroy any chance of reaching an accommodation on the nuclear front and put paid to his grand vision of a new Middle East order.”

That grand vision fits in well not only with Obama’s idea of the reasonableness of the mullahs (let’s not forget the influence of Valerie Jarrett, although the article does not mention her), but it fits in even better with Obama’s own towering grandiosity. Obama is the one who can do it, because he’s smarter, more reasonable, craftier, more perceptive, more persuasive, more whatever-is-needed than all his predecessors. This is something he truly believes.

As for Syria, Obama’s Syrian policy (which looked to some like mere confusion) was dictated by his fear of antagonizing Iran and jeopardizing the wonderful transformative agreement that’s just on the horizon. The author also believes that shortly before the 2012 election, Obama assured Teheran (as he did Russia) that in his second term he’d have a lot more freedom and “flexibility.” The course of subsequent negotiations makes for depressing reading, although we pretty much already know the gist of it, which can be summarized as “Obama concedes.”

Obama’s Middle Eastern policy has been so Iran-centric that even lowly bloggers like me have noticed the pattern; it’s nearly impossible to miss. But Doran’s article offers a detailed history and a coherent way of looking at the big picture. That it will make your blood run cold is no surprise; your blood has probably already been running cold for a long time.

It’s that day. Again.

The New Neo Posted on by

You know what day I’m talking about. All together now: Groundhog Day!

Really, what could be more appropriate on Groundhog Day than a repeat of an old essay about the movie, a personal favorite of mine?

In discussions of the film “Groundhog Day” on this blog, I’ve noticed a couple of people questioning why the Bill Murray character would find Andie McDowell’s Rita deserving of all those years of his devotion and energy. For example, “…[W]hat, exactly, made the lovely but, let’s face it, vapid Rita worthy of Phil’s centuries of effort?”

My answer is that he discovered love. Yes, Rita was beautiful, and a good human being with many excellent qualities. But of course she was imperfect, and over the years (centuries? millennia?) Phil no doubt had learned just about all of her flaws. Still, it didn’t matter to him because it wasn’t about Rita, exactly—it was about the fact that, somewhere along the long path of his transformation to wisdom, he finally understood that every person in town, including the ones he couldn’t tolerate at the beginning, was worthy of his attention—and of something one might call “love,” in its broadest sense.

And somewhere along the way to that knowledge, Phil’s efforts in “Groundhog Day” stopped being about getting into Rita’s pants or even getting her to love him, although that certainly took up a larger percentage of his time (and the movie’s length) than some of his other pursuits. But he probably spent at least as much time learning to play the piano (a form of love, too), or to carve ice sculptures, or to become skilled at some of the more mindless and meaningless tricks he mastered, or learning details about the life of almost everyone in town.

Was the old derelict, whose life Phil tried to save over and over and over, “worth it” either? Such questions no longer mattered to him, because the gesture and the effort were worth it, and every life was worth something to him.

Rita, of course, had always been physically attractive to Phil. But as the film (and time) wore on—and on—she became the object not just of eros, but of agape as well. By the end of the movie, I think that Phil had come to appreciate the idea of the theme and variations versus the symphony, which I wrote about here:

And, although walking repeatedly in the same place is very different from traveling around the world and walking in a new place every day, is it really so very much less varied? It depends on the eye and mind of the beholder; the expansive imagination can find variety in small differences, and the stunted one can find boredom in vast changes.

And I submit that love is like that, too. Some people spend a lifetime with one love, one spouse; plumbing the depths of that single human being and what it means to be in an intimate relationship with him/her. Others go from relationship to relationship, never alighting with one person for very long, craving the variety.

It would seem on the face of it that the second type of person has the more exciting time in love. But it ain’t necessarily so. Either of these experiences can be boring or fascinating, depending on what we bring to it: the first experience is a universe in depth, and the second a universe in breadth. But both can contain multitudes.

Towards the end of the film [SPOILER ALERT!!], Phil makes it clear that he has given up the pursuit of Rita entirely, and immersed himself in his love for her instead. Is this what finally frees him to re-enter the flow of time? [The next two clips combined give you a rough version of the movie’s end; I couldn’t find one clip that showed the whole thing]:

[NOTE: For more on the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the film, please see this and this.]

I love the Malcolm Butler story

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t ordinarily write about football, except for the obligatory open thread for the Superbowl—and I don’t always even do that.

So this may be the lengthiest football thread I’ll ever write.

I’m not a football fan, although I know the basic rules and I watch it on occasion when there’s some special reason. But for the Superbowl last night I had a plan (you might say I had a game plan). Watching the entire thing would be too boring, so I’d watch part of the half-time show and then the second half of the game if it looked interesting. It looked interesting, because the game was tied at the half, but somewhere in the third quarter I just couldn’t go on. The Patriots were looking bad—behind by ten points—as well as lackluster.

Although I had planned to tune in briefly now and then to monitor the score, sometime not long after I had turned off the TV my phone rang. It was an old friend who lives far away and whom I’ve been trying to reach for weeks. She finally had some free time, and so I figured I’d talk to her—a good long talk, about an hour or more. After all, I wasn’t missing a thing; who cared about the crummy old game?

Well, you know how that turned out. I missed the whole thing and had to play catch-up with (a) the Greatest Miracle Catch in History Carrying on the Tradition of Heartbreaking Patriots’ Losses; and then (b) the Worst Play Call in History; and then (c) the Greatest Interception in History; all going to make up (d) the Greatest Superbowl in History.

That’s a whole lotta history going on—and me, gabbing on the phone the whole time, just like a girl (and I throw like a girl, too—one of the most obnoxious Superbowl ads ever, wasn’t it?).

So of course then I had to watch the replays and listen to the commentary and read up on exactly what had happened. And it was the tale of Malcolm Butler, rookie hero, that most grabbed me:

That it was Butler who made Seattle pay is every bit as astounding as the misjudgment to begin with. Super Bowl XLIX was full of players who had been overlooked in the NFL Draft before establishing themselves in the league. But Butler was overlooked even among guys who had been overlooked. Nobody had farther to climb than him. It’s one thing to be undrafted like a Doug Baldwin out of Stanford; more than one team is going to call.

When you’re undrafted out of West Alabama, you might only hear from one.

“[The Patriots] were the only team that have me an opportunity,” Butler said Sunday night, “and I’m so glad they did.”

So is New England. Butler was a long shot to make the team, until he did. He was a long shot to stay active for most of the season, until he passed Alfonzo Dennard on the depth chart. He was a long shot to see action on Sunday night as the Pats’ fifth corner, until Kyle Arrington spent the first 35 minutes of the game getting handled by Chris Matthews.

(No, not that Chris Matthews.)

Pete Carroll’s explanation for his own team’s move seemed weak, to say the least:

[Seahawks’ coach] Carroll’s explanation: He saw the Patriots bring in a formation with eight big guys and three cornerbacks and didn’t think Lynch, who tied for the league lead with 13 touchdowns rushing this season, would be able to bull it in against that defense.

“It’s not a great matchup for us to run the football, so we were going to throw the ball, really to waste a play,” Carroll said. “If we score, we do, if we don’t, we’ll run it in on third or fourth down.”

Butler showed a sharp eye for detail, quick thinking, and quick physical action too:

“I saw Wilson looking over there (towards the receivers),” Butler said. “He kept his head still and just looked over there, so that gave me a clue, and the stacked receivers, I just knew they were going to throw. My instincts, I just went with it, just went with my mind and made the play.”

There’s that explanation. But there’s also the explanation that Butler can’t explain:

“I just had a vision that I was going to make a big play, and it came true,” Butler said afterward. “I’m just blessed. I can’t explain it right now.”

To make the event even more dramatic, just a tad earlier Butler had had a really tough break:

Only moments earlier, things were playing out much differently for Butler. He was in coverage — good coverage — against Seahawks receiver Jermaine Kearse and appeared to bat the ball down for an incompletion. But as Kearse was falling, the ball bobbled between his legs, and he kept it in the air by batting it twice while tumbling. Kearse made the catch on his back for a 33-yard gain that gave Seattle a first-and-goal at the 5.

Butler went to the sideline.

“My teammates were saying, nine out of 10 times, that ball is incomplete,” he said. “It was devastating.”

A play later, Lynch had bulled the ball to the 1.

And then Butler became the Comeback Kid of all time.

I love stories like that.

[NOTE: Some great footage and photos here that show the plays involved fairly clearly.]

[ADDENDUM: Butler interview:

Hat tip: commenter “CV.”

And here’s another really enjoyable interview:

There’s something exceptionally winning about his personality.

And here’s a good article from last summer about Butler’s road to pro ball. It was written before the Superbowl, of course, but the seeds of what happened last night are there.

More here:

In recapping the play immediately after he left the field, he actually thought the ball was on the 3- or 4-yard line. He said he couldn’t explain it, but he just knew what was coming in part because of his résumé.

“I’m pretty sure he knows I’m a rookie, and who wouldn’t try a rookie?” he said. “I was ready.”

“Ready” is an understatement. As one of the comments at the article says, ” Most guys, especially an unheralded rookie, would be down after Kearse’s catch, but Butler’s stays focused on the task at hand and notices a familiar formation because he STUDIED.”]