Since it’s Super-Stupid weekend, date of the annual American Festival of Gridiron Violence (AFGV) that comprises our nation’s true religion – or rather our true false religion, i.e. our chief idolatry and heresy – and since the Stupor Bowl will soon be rendering Americans comatose as they sink slowly into millions of beer-stained sofas across the nation and begin gorging themselves on junk food and screaming mindlessly at the televised image of a mob of armor-plated skirmishing behemoths knocking themselves silly while squabbling over possession of the inflated bladder of a long-since-deceased pig – and, above all, since THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE ACTUALLY IN THE SUPER BOWL (which in the eyes of many is sufficient proof of the existence of God), I feel that it is only fitting that I post something really, REALLY stupid in honor of the occasion. So here goes: instead of scintillating insights into New World Order corruption or Mideast politics or the subtleties of comparative mysticism, I’m going to write about dogs and football.
First, dogs. Dogs can be really, really cool even if the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) said they tend to keep angels from visiting your house. Our dog, Rushdie, is sweet, clean, delicate, and refined. If any angels came around, he would never bark at them; he would greet them effusively. Rushdie nibbles his food delicately after sniffing it over carefully – unlike baser dogs who mindlessly wolf down just about anything they can find. He is extremely intelligent and seems almost psychic in his ability to quickly understand our thoughts, emotions and plans. Rushdie has only one bad habit: He unleashes an earsplitting, thunderous bark when he sees another dog through the car window. We suspect he barks at other dogs because he sees them as threats to his most prized possessions — namely, us.
(Video of me meeting Rushdie’s namesake.)
Okay, enough about dogs. Let’s talk about football!
Aaron Rodgers’ amazing performance against Atlanta on January 16th was the best I’ve ever seen by an NFL quarterback. Playing his fourth straight must-win game on the road, against one of the best teams in football, Rodgers was precision-perfect, eluding pass rushers who would have snagged any other QB, and firing strike after strike with his patented quick-release. Rodgers was so good Atlanta’s defense didn’t have a chance; the Packers never even had to punt.
What made Rodgers’ performance even more impressive was that Atlanta had gained the momentum early in the game, and the noise level in the Falcons’ stadium was like an Atlanta airport runway. Every time the Packers broke huddle, it was like a jet was taking off a few feet overhead. Rodgers, who had been under some pressure here in Wisconsin because he is not Brett Favre and had not yet won any championships, responded by putting on one of the greatest aerial displays ever. And people finally noticed: Troy Aikman said Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFL, and headlines appeared saying things like “This Just In: Rodgers Is Really Good.”
This is a guy who can handle pressure. He’d better be, since he’s following in the footsteps of Brett Favre. And because he’s so good, and so good at handling pressure, he’s doing what, to my knowledge, only Steve Young has ever done: emerge from the shadow of backing up the best quarterback in football, to quickly become the best quarterback in football.
Rodgers himself is undoubtedly aware of the parallel. He recently said that the Packers’ Super Bowl run is “what I’ve dreamt about since I was a kid growing up in Northern California watching (San Francisco 49ers quarterbacks) Joe Montana and Steve Young.”
I moved from Wisconsin to San Francisco in the early 80’s, just in time to catch Joe Montana’s incredible career. Talk about cool under pressure! Down by five points, San Francisco’s ball on its own ten yard line, three minutes left in the game: Montana’s got them exactly where he wants them. After four Super Bowl victories and 31 fourth-quarter come-from-behind wins, Montana finally left San Francisco to his young backup, a guy whose name happened to be Young.
San Francisco fans, spoiled by all those years of great teams and incredible performances by Montana, were hesitant to embrace Steve Young. The press gave him a hard time because he wasn’t Joe Montana. But Steve Young persisted and quickly emerged as the best quarterback in football, a terrific passer who happened to be the fastest guy on the team and could run like a pro-bowl halfback. San Franciscans, including me, were doubly spoiled by the Montana-Young quarterback dynasty.
Now the same thing is happening in Green Bay…except the Packer fans, who are classier than Niner fans, are giving Rodgers a warmer welcome than Young got. In Packer hangouts, including the taverns in rural Wisconsin where, as the token Muslim, I drink root beer and try to avoid pork items in the buffet, nobody’s wearing #4 Favre jerseys any more. Everywhere you look the green-and-gold shirts say #12, Aaron Rodgers.
It seems to me Rodgers encapsulates some of the best features of Montana, Young, and Favre. Like Montana, he’s cool under pressure. Like Young, he’s fast and mobile – a hard target for pass rushers and a threat to run with the ball if nobody’s open. And like Favre, he’s a great passer and tremendous competitor.
And now, like Favre, he’s taken the Packers to the Super Bowl.
The Packers and Steelers seem evenly matched. Anything could happen. But considering the Rodgers factor – he’s especially good in domed stadiums like the one in Arlington – I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned into a Packer blowout.
So…I gave one of my favorite internet writers the Steelers and three points. Loser has to effusively praise the winner’s writing. Stay tuned to this space to see how that turns out!
Regards what you say of Rogers and your hunch of a blowout: obvious.
I'm that favorite internet columnist Kevin mentioned so let's see if Kevin delivers when the Steelers whip the Packers tomorrow.
Allen L Roland
salaam,
this article is nearly treating all the aspects of what is going on n the middle east but he forgot to mention that zio brezinsky agenda is to turn muslims against china and russia, even india and netanyahu agenda iss to rule the middle east, we are watching them and at the end off the day we will have our Khilafa back… insha Allah
now look carefully at what happened in Tunisia a country they controlled from A to Z… we are far more powerful than them on the ground ! Now look at Algeria and Morocco and how zio networks in France, Germany and Britain will fall suddenly before the end of the year… Netanyahu is working for us, but he will only figure it out when too late,
wait and see insha Allah
here is the article akhi and we make duas for our brother and sisters struggling, while we are disabling the fake dissidents and zio backed puppets :
http://rense.com/general92/crea.htm
Anonymous is right – "Packer blowout" is obvious. Allen Roland may be a good writer, but he's crazy to pick the Steelers.
Engdahl's article exaggerates US control of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions. A permanent Mubarak & Son dynasty would have served US interests more than a revolution whose consequences are unpredictable. The neocons are less than enthusiastic about Egyptian "creative destruction": http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/02/neocons%E2%80%99-tepid-reaction-to-the-egyptian-democratic-revolution/ So is the rest of the US establishment, which is why they haven't forced Mubarak out yet. In the long term, a united Islamic Ummah or neo-caliphate strong enough to defend its own resources (perhaps with some help from the US to balance the power of neighbors like Russia, China and India) would be in the US interest. 9/11 was a Zionist coup d'etat by the Kissinger/neocon group, against the Brzezinksi/realist group, to forestall this likely eventuality, which would require the sacrifice of the Zionist entity.
Yes, a Packer blowout is obvious.
And with all this protesting in the ME, its making it obvious just what 9/11 and the so called "war on terror" is all about: zionism, Israel.
But, but… you don't mean to suggest that the "realists" think that zionism is unsustainable, do you?
The realists don't think Zionism is unsustainable. The KNOW Zionism is unsustainable. If they didn't, they wouldn't be very realistic, now, would they?
Pat Buchanan recounts a conversation with the arch-realist Nixon: "What do you think of Israel, Dick?" Nixon gives a thumbs up sign. "How about in the future?" Nixon slowly flips his fist into a thumbs-down, dispatch-the-gladiator sign.
Historical trends – decolonization, demographics, the Islamic revival, and the Euro-American world's loss of relative power – ensure that the Jews-only state's days are numbered. The only question is the precise number.
good insight… thanks Kevin on est sur la meme longueur d'onde… but Kissinger Jacob Rotshield and their mouth pieces Netanyahu, David Cameron have other war plan in mind !
Brezinsky Rockfeller and others will follow by deception
Kevin, you are a hoot. I grew up 50 miles north of Green Bay so the Packers are pretty much in my DNA, also. They are truly a people’s team, being owned by thousands of solid citizens in northern Wisconsin rather than some rich fat cat.
I also went to the University of Wisconsin, got 3 degrees there over a period of years. Might have passed you on State Street a time or two.
I know you now follow Islam and I respect that. I am a recovering Lutheran (aghast at their acquiescence to unjust wars over the years, despite such wars being expressly forbidden by their own Augsburg Confession.) Now, I am pretty much an agnostic, who reads the words of the Lord Jesus (blessed be his name) every day and tries to live by His teachings. I just don’t presume to have it all figured out… now, or ever, like so many religious people I encounter seem to do.
Also, I enjoy a good Sheboygan bratwurst and a frosty Leinenkugels on occasion, which would exempt me from your particular faith system. Sorry about that.