Chicken Soup with Dick Vermeil's gatekeeper...

Dick Vermeil is retired from coaching football and is now the proud owner of a wine mill in California. A previous post explains why I know his name.

Last November I sent a sarcastic e-mail to his winery. I was curious about whether or not Vermeil spent any time thinking about Bryan Boyd. Boyd spends every day and will spend every day of his life facing the horrific injuries imposed upon him by Ryan Tucker(kind, amazing, gentle, and strong). I did not expect a response and did not receive one from Vermeil himself. What I did receive only reinforced my perception of the institution of football.

On November 4, 2011 I asked the following sarcastic question:

"Will Bryan Boyd by receiving a complimentary case of your best vintage?"

Regadrs,

Kim L. Short



I received this response the same day:

"Please provide us with more information on Mr. Boyd and his connection with the winery and/or Coach Vermeil. Thank you."

Tom Ward



I assume that Tom Ward is an administrative assistant or some other functionary. On November 5, 2011 I sent an explanation of my original e-mail and included a link to my original post about Ryan Tucker:

"Hello Tom,

Thank you for responding so quickly. The question was meant to be sarcastic and I apologize for the spelling error.

Bryan Boyd was attacked by Ryan Tucker and four other football players while they were all students at Texas Christian University. Boyd was beaten so badly the hospital asked his mother about donating his organs. Dick Vermeil's comment to the media was essentially an expression of praise for Tucker's ability to impose harm on others.

I've always been fascinated by the public's ability to telegraph depraved indifference toward victims of violent crime and exhibit wild expressions of praise for violent criminals while expressing shock and bewilderment at the behavior of terrorists. Does Coach Vermeil have an opinion on this matter?"

Regards,

Kim L. Short



Again, Tom Ward responded immediately. I found it interesting that Ward did not question the accuracy of my claim, especially when I got it wrong. Bryan Boyd was attacked by four football players from Texas Christian University, not by Ryan Tucker and four others. Did he not even bother to look it up on the internet?

"Hi Kim,

Was not aware of the situation and have worked with Coach Vermeil closely these last 4 years and have only known him to be one of the most kind, fair, and charitable people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. If each of us were judged by a single comment in our life (and indeed a snipet of a conversation attributed to him) rather than on the body of our works, we would all be in a lot of trouble. Peace to you and yours…"

Tom Ward





Tom Ward is correct when he claims that we would all be in a lot of trouble if we were being judged solely by a single comment or act. But there's an important difference between Dick Vermeil and the rest of us. Vermeil spent his career serving an institution infamous for deifying, enriching, and protecting the worst of the worst and then trying to gloss over the ugliness by staging occasional and well timed acts of charity. Tom Ward wrote back to me the same day (November 5, 2011) with a shining example:

"Hi Kim,

It occurred to me after my last note that there is a very appropriate story to share in giving you some perspective of my view of Mr. Vermeil. I spend a lot of time with him…probably 50 days a year…and earlier this year he flew out to Denver for a paid speaking engagement. Companies will often pay to bring a well-known personality and Mr. Vermeil was offered $10,000 by a charity in Denver to address a group of their major contributors.

Kim, the charity was a shelter for abused women, and Coach was very moved after touring the facility and meeting with some of the families there. He concluded his presentation to the donors who were brought in to meet him that he would pass on his speaking fee if 10 people would raise their hands and pledge an additional $1,000 each, which of course happened quickly. You are clearly welcome to formulate your opinion of the man, but please take into consideration from someone who has seen him perform COUNTLESS acts of random kindness that he truly is a good soul.

God bless, take care…"


Tom



After reminding me that we should not be judged by individual comments or acts, Tom Ward undermined his own argument by expressing the usual toadying worship of Vermeil's well timed but meaningless theatre production. Every time I see a football player visiting a children's hospital or some similar venue I want to puke. I have difficulty believing that the public is really stupid enough to be fooled by such stage managed phoniness...and then election year roles around and I get to observe the same phenomenon on the grand scale. Enthralled crowds of empty headed worshippers cheer wildly when Political Candidate #3 endlessly repeats some variation of, "Follow me! Blame them!"

I questioned Vermeil's true character and intent with the following response:

"Hi Tom,

The existence of "abused women" implies the existence of abusers, men who enjoy a strong sense of entitlement and legitimacy in their mistreatment of others. They also enjoy a strong sense of security in a culture where violent behavior is the hallmark of being a man and victims of violence, male or female are often blamed for bringing it upon themselves. Given the subject of my weblog and my criticism of the public's acceptance of violent men, my next question is simple:

Has Coach Vermeil made any effort to undermine the legitimacy of violent men?"

Regards,

Kim L. Short



This is where the dialog ended. Frankly, I'm surprised it went on as long as it did. In American culture, questioning the devine right of large, male sociopaths is one of our strongest taboos. Terrorists know that. I've always known it. And now you know it too. Enjoy the game tomorrow.

Chicken Soup with Ryan Tucker's most inarticulate defender...

A few years ago I had another weblog where I posted a few unkind words about Ryan Tucker's violent, criminal behavior during his illustrious college career. Someone left a comment that I found so revealing I kept it on a Word Document. Before reading it you'll understand all of its hidden meanings if you familiarize yourself with Ryan Tucker's character and the sort of people who defend violent men.

Here's the post in all its inarticulate glory:

"You are obviously someone who got picked on in school. Who had to form A delusional explantion for it instead of accepting the truth.If you would have had enough confidence in your own character or self confidence in social settings you would never have been bullied, but if u never lovEd yourself how could u expect a group of your teenage peers to do so? And quit personally attacking R.T. He's kind, amazing, gentle, and strong, u do not know him to say such things. He got into a bar fight while a college student, and has paid a huge price for it, many college guys get into fights that end up just as bad, even worse....and the only reason u focus on this one is because of his remarkable career, peace"

My fourth grade teacher would be pulling her hair out after reading that.

Now that you've also had an opportunity to enjoy bad grammar, try to determine how many of the different groups of bully enablers the writer belongs to. For purposes of convenience I'm going to assume that no male American football fan would describe a violent, 300 pound sociopath as "kind, amazing, gentle, and strong." That would just be too damned creepy. I'll be referring to the writer with the pronoun she.

She assumed correctly that I was bullied when I was young. It wasn't overly traumatic, but what I learned from the experience had nothing to do with bullies. I learned that most people, adults included shamelessly display their depraved indifference as if it were something to be proud of. More important, the writer clearly blames bullying on the victim by implying that my lack of "self confidence" justified the behavior of the bullies. That places her clearly in Group 3: Cowards.

The writer refers to Tucker as "kind, amazing, gentle, and strong." One could hardly assemble a more toadying combination of compliments for a violent criminal. This places her in Group 1: Toadying Sycophants and possibly the 3rd category of Group 2: Female Airheads.

She finishes her literary masterpiece by stating that Tucker "got into a bar fight while a college student, and has paid a huge price for it, many college guys get into fights that end up just as bad, even worse....and the only reason u focus on this one is because of his remarkable career, peace" Again she plays the Toadying Sycophant by reminding me of his majesty's "remarkable career." There's nothing remarkable about Tucker's career. He lives inside a huge body and received millions of dollars for knocking other men to the ground in front of thousands of screaming idiots. She clearly implies that beating smaller, weaker victims is perfectly normal behavior for "college guys." She clearly has no empathy for the men who end up being victimized by all those wholesome and manly college guys. This places her firmly in Group 4: Callouses.

America produces a huge number of men who intensely hate women: batterers, serial killers, rapists. The sick bitch who left that comment appears to be oblivious to the hatred she and others like her generate. Consider the case of George Sodini. Many people believe that George Sodini behaved as he did because women rejected him. That's not quite true. He hated women because a very noticeable but small percentage of women who could easily choose whomever they want during their youth inexplicably choose to lavish attention upon the cockiest and most violent sociopaths on campus. Men who end up being abused by those sociopaths tend to notice and George Sodini was obviously one of them. This doesn't seem to occur to the sort of Airhead who left the post in question. Of course...nothing prepares a soulless, social climbing whore to receive the royal penis quite like watching His Majesty brutalize and humiliate a less sponge worthy male, so we can certainly understand her taste in men.

As always...

Why do so many Americans make it so easy for terrorists to hate them? If you have an answer, I'd like to know what it is.

Chicken Soup with Columbine's Lords of Denial...

The 13th anniversary of the Columbine Massacre is fast approaching and in all that time not a single adult in Littleton, Colorado has publicly admitted to any significant degree of complicity. Children and teenagers do not establish and maintain the culture of a community.

Adults do that.

When victims of bullying and their parents complain to school administrators (adults), it isn't the student body that attempts to wait them out in the hope that they'll just give up.

Adults do that.

And not just random adults. Adults in authority choose to ignore the criminal behavior of their star athletes. Instead of placing a high priority on the safety of other people's children, they chose to concentrate on stroking the athlete's bloated ego. There's an awful lot of blame to spread around. There are the adults who want their children to be feared by other people's children. Google "another Jew in the oven" for a small sample. There are the adults who have the power to punish specific bullies or discourage bullying in general by openly and loudly condemning it. There are the adults who wouldn't miss a football game for anything, even when they know a boycott would send a clear message. Adults cause and/or perpetuate the vast majority of our society's problems, but they'll never admit it. Adults always have a scapegoat handy to deflect blame. Like psychopaths on the witness stand in a criminal trial, the adults of Littleton, Colorado truly believe that they did nothing wrong.

If you've read a few of the posts here you should have figured out that this weblog is not about bullies, terrorists, or other similar criminals. It's about enablers. When you're finished reading about enablers consider the following analogy to high schools like Columbine:

A thousand people get drunk, climb into their cars, and go somewhere. One of them crashes into another vehicle, killing and maiming several victims. The other 999 drunk drivers get where they're going without crashing into anything. Some of them come very close, but they just laugh it off as normal behavior. A few cause other drivers to swerve out of their way, resulting in traffic collisions that didn't directly involve the drunk driver who caused the problem. They laugh it off too. Think of all of the vandals, serial arsonists, bombers, and killers who can trace their anger to the community sanctioned cruelty they were subjected to as adolescents. Like drunk drivers who cause collisions without being harmed by them, these are the schools who cause tragedies without suffering from their effects. Perhaps you attended one of these gems of western civilization yourself.

The drunk driver who is unlucky enough to actually crash into something makes a few headlines, but all of the others remain anonymous. In their minds they did nothing wrong. Like the drunk who crashed, the Columbine massacre made a lot of headlines, but little effort was expended to thoroughly investigate the athletes first culture that precipitated it. Given the behavior of many athletes since Columbine, little effort has been expended to address the problem. American adults are very good at the art of denial.

There are a thousand Columbine's in America; high schools and colleges where cocky, violent sociopaths are placed on a pedestal simply because they play football. Only one of those Columbines became known as the Columbine. It's unfortunate that no one in the media spent much time investigating the adults who placed violent bullies on a pedestal and ignored the complaints of their victims. But that's part of American culture. Ignore problems that harm unimportant people and they'll conveniently go away.

I love that picture of Mr. Denial. It has that ...Who? Me?!!... look.

The reason no one is putting a spotlight on the adults most responsible for inspiring the level of hatred needed to stage the Columbine massacre is both simple and obvious. The victims of bullying were others people's kids, and in America the safety of other people's kids shrinks to insignificance when compared to the ego of a football player.

Go Rebels!!

Why do so many Americans make it so easy for domestic terrorists to hate them?

If you have an answer to this question, feel free to leave a comment.

Chicken Soup with George Huguely's defense team...

The world's terrorists must feel overwhelmed by the wealth of material they can reference when training their field agents.

George Huguely's defense team requested the medical records of his former (She's dead Jim!) girlfriend, Yeardley Love. By itself this wouldn't mean much except for the fact that the police found her "lying face down on her bed with her right eye blackened and swollen shut." Huguely's attorneys are claiming that she "died from an irregular heartbeat caused partially from taking prescription Adderall and drinking alcohol."

The American Judicial System is an Alice in Wonderland drug trip where nothing makes any sense to most intelligent people. In such an environment, blaming death from a savage beating on the weakness of the victim might actually work. In the real world, it only assists criminals, including terrorists to rationalize the moral neutrality of what they do.

If anyone can explain why intelligent, well educated Americans knowingly behave this way I'd like to hear your opinion. Terrorists are learning from our behavior. Are you?

Chicken Soup with a fellow blogger...

I left an excessively generic comment on someone's blog a day or two ago that evidently caused some confusion about my overall objectives. Here's the problem as I see it:

There's an old story in Plato's Republic that involves a magic ring which allows its wearer to become invisible. Sound familiar? You can get the details by googling "Ring of Gyges" but the story has been used over and over in contemporary fiction. Plato argued that men who behave in a moral fashion do so not out of a deep seated sense of obligation to civilization but simply because they lack the power to behave immorally and escape punishment. The Ring of Gyges tells the story of a simple shepherd who acquires the power of invisibility and quickly uses it to improve his own quality of life at the expense of others.

Enough about Plato. He's still dead.

I wouldn't recommend holding your breath while waiting for magic rings and invisibility cloaks to be developed, but we are faced with a problem. Technology is creating a situation where a growing number of otherwise insignificant individuals are acquiring an increasing ability to cause harm to others with little chance of being punished. Today you worry about visiting the wrong websites because of computer viruses. A few decades from now your grandchildren will be worried about real viruses. Should they open that direct mail advertisement, or even touch it? Should they touch that doorknob or accept that offer of leftover cookies in the company breakroom? You get the idea.

The sort of people who create today's computer viruses are the product of the same social processes as those who will be creating tomorrow's real viruses. They are the product of a society that proudly displays a corrosive level of depraved indifference toward others. Read almost any post in this weblog for an example. Anyone with the technical ability to gain something, even if what they gain is as petty as a temporary thrill of empowerment by causing harm to others is much more likely to use that ability if their value system developed in a social environment like ours. In America, virtually every public school student learns that cruelty is rewarded and victims of cruelty are shamelessly blamed for what others do to them. In many schools, the adults in authority simply ignore complaints from victims of cruelty. The Columbine Massacre was not a mystery. It was an embarrassment. What a toilet.

I don't expect to change much of anything simply by writing a blog, but doing nothing would only make me feel as ugly and lacking in character as those who enable the criminals described in this weblog.

If this explanation is insufficient, leave a question and I'll attempt to provide a suitable answer.

Chicken Soup with sociopaths who reproduce...

Terrorists must love the American Family.

Remember George Huguely, the all American male who bravely defeated his girlfriend Yeardley Love in unarmed combat? His father, also rumored to be a really wonderful guy was recently arrested for drunk driving.

It's never been a secret that bigots, bullies, and batterers are like human feces. They emerge from the orifice of family character and they're welcomed with open arms by their moral peers in the cesspool of community character.

Our civilization would be much better off if sociopaths avoided reproducing, but don't hold your breath waiting for anyone in America to admit it. That's a taboo subject and it's considered a third rail in American politics. As a result of everyone's refusal to admit the ugly truth, the world's terrorists will continue to have an unlimited supply of evil characters they can refer to when building up the necessary hatred to attack.

Sleep well everyone, and whatever you do, don't look in the mirror.

Chicken Soup with Mike McQueary, former Penn. State hero...

Terrorists are familiar with corruption and injustice. That's why they become terrorists. This story should sound very familiar to them.

In a follow up to the embarrassing revelations about the sort of characters who infest the institution of football, Mike McQueary took the stand Friday and testified about what he saw. You can read the article yourself but one point stands out for me.

Defense attorneys pointed out that McQueary didn't act like a man who saw a young boy being molested. In other words, McQueary didn't immediately rescue the victim or report the crime to the police. I suppose they'll try to use this as a defense, hoping that jurors will be fooled into believing that cowardice and depraved indifference is equivalent to innocence.

It isn't.

McQueary is a member of an institution (football) with a long history of covering up even the most heinous crimes of its participants. His first impulse upon seeing Sandusky plowing his manliness into a small boy may have been to intervene, but upon realizing that the offender was a high ranking member of the institution he served (football), he became immediately intimidated. He was so intimidated he called his father for advice. His father was also intimidated. He told his son to report what he saw to another, higher ranking member of the holy fraternity of football.

Keeping it in the family and all that.

From the viewpoint of terrorists and those considering entering the field, most of the people they'll be killing, injuring, or otherwise imposing harm upon are the sort of people who wouldn't dream of demonstrating a significant degree of civility by boycotting the institution (football) most responsible for enabling criminals (alleged) like Sandusky.

From the viewpoint of the average American, victims don't matter.

If anyone wants to explain why terrorists should value the lives of Americans, feel free. Try to pick a more imaginative name than "Anonymous."