Favre proves a point (or two)

MINNEAPOLIS -- Mock him. Rip him. Despise him. But while you're at it, remember to respect him.
Brett Favre has earned at least that much, right?
If you're still wondering why Favre unretired for seemingly the billionth time, the Minnesota Vikings' 34-3 invasive surgery on the Dallas Cowboys is a nice place to start.
Scalpel, please.
Favre and the Vikings first cut out Dallas' heart, then Tony Romo's arm, and then removed the remaining body parts of the Cowboys from the playoffs. The Vikings advance to the NFC Championship Game. Organ donor Dallas advances to the offseason.
"No one's more surprised than me with the way the game unfolded," Favre said late Sunday afternoon.
It didn't unfold so much as it crashed on the Cowboys. The designated "hottest team in the playoffs" was extinguished by its own big mouth (thank you, strong safety Gerald Sensabaugh), by its inability to pass block (a jittery Romo was sacked six times and committed three turnovers) and by four Favre touchdown passes (a playoff-tying record three to wide receiver Sidney Rice).
Sometimes you have to remind yourself that Favre is 40 years old. His beard stubble is as gray as the T-shirt he wore to the postgame news conference, but his right arm is college sophomore and his enthusiasm is Pop Warner.
"He don't look no 40," said Vikings nose tackle Pat Williams, at 37 the second-oldest player on the Minnesota roster.
"Forty going on 25," said Vikings offensive tackle Phil Loadholt.
Favre completed 15 of 24 passes for 234 yards, those four TDs and no interceptions. But those are just numbers. To appreciate what he really did, watch a replay of the 47-yard precision bomb he threw to Rice late in the first quarter. And let's hope Sensabaugh watches it too, since he missed it the first time.
"I don't even think he knew it was thrown," Rice said of Sensabaugh, who had popped off earlier in the week about beating the Vikings.
TD Pass No. 2 was better. Not better thrown, but how many times do you see a 40-year-old quarterback juke a 26-year-old defensive end out of his sani socks? That's what Favre did to Marcus Spears moments before finding Rice for a 16-yard scoring throw.
TD Pass No. 3 was another perfect throw to Rice for a 45-yard score. And TD Pass No. 4 came on a fourth-and-3 from the Cowboys' 11 with two minutes left in the game. Favre threw it. Tight end Visanthe Shiancoe caught it. Dallas linebacker Keith Brooking hated it -- and showed great closing speed to the Vikings' sideline so he could tell Minnesota coach Brad Childress exactly that.
"It isn't our fault [Shiancoe] got open," said Vikings guard Anthony Herrera.
Favre didn't apologize for the pass. Then again, he wasn't the one who called it; Childress and offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell did that. Was it another shovel full of rock salt in the Cowboys' wound? Sure. But it doesn't change the essential facts: Favre, Rice and the Vikings' offensive and defensive lines played well … Romo, the Cowboys' O-line, secondary and field goal kicker didn't.
Afterward, a beaming Zygi Wilf, the Vikings' owner, lingered in the locker room. He's the guy who OK'd the free-agent run at Favre and wrote the check. The payoff for the QB codger has been enormous.
"I'm approaching 60, so [40 is] young to me," Wilf said. "But the excitement he brings to everybody, the fun that he has with the players makes it a great time for everybody."
One more win -- next Sunday against the New Orleans Saints in the Superdome -- and the Vikings are in the Super Bowl. Just spitballing here, but Favre versus Peyton Manning isn't a bad storyline.
"This is why he was brought here," Williams said. "To prove a point to everybody."
And the point?
"Basically everybody was saying he was too old, [saying] 'Why you coming back?"' Williams said. "But he showed everybody why he came back."
So far during these playoffs, Favre has outlasted the other golden QB oldie, Arizona's Kurt Warner (38). He has outlasted his longtime employers, the Green Bay Packers, and his replacement Aaron Rodgers (through no real fault of Rodgers', though). And on Sunday, he outlasted the supposedly "new" postseason Romo.
"He's playing the best he's played his whole career," said Vikings wide receiver Percy Harvin, the NFL offensive rookie of the year. "He's just one of those anointed guys."
First of all, Harvin is 21. Favre has boxer shorts older than that. But he's right: If Favre isn't playing the best football of his career, it's close to the best.
Of course, the Vikings didn't know what to make of him before he arrived last summer.
"If everything they were saying about him was true, as far as him not being a good locker room guy, I didn't want him," Herrera said. "But from the first day here he was nothing like everybody was saying. The Green Bay Packers were trying to make him seem like a bad person. [And] whatever they were saying about him in New York -- they were trying to make him seem like a bad person.
"None of it's true. None of it, at all. I'm happy to have him as one of my teammates."
At this point, everything is playoff gravy for Favre. He wants to reach his third Super Bowl. He wants to prove 40 is the new football 30. And yeah, maybe he wants to stick it to Packers management.
But for now, love him or hate him, you can't deny what he's accomplished this season. Favre is channeling 1990s Brett.
"I was actually thinking about it last night," Favre said. "I'm like, 'OK, now I know when I look back at my career I will remember the 40-year-old year. No doubt.'"
Everyone will. The Vikings. The Packers. And now the Cowboys.

Gene Wojciechowski is the senior national columnist for ESPN.com. You can contact him at gene.wojciechowski@espn3.com. Hear Gene's podcasts and ESPN Radio appearances by clicking here.

Provocative Article by Dina Zaman

Recently, an article written by Nadine al-Bedair My Four Husbands and I created a furor among the Saudi conservatives. The said essay was picked up by the English media, though it hardly mustered a mention in Malaysia.

Reading it, I thought Khaled Diab’s analysis of al Bedair’s prose as honest, practical and that Bedair put forth her arguments wittily.

Diab commented, “Nadine al-Bedair quite sensibly posed the logical question: if Muslim men are entitled to marry up to four wives, why can’t women, in the spirit of equality between believers, have four husbands?

“I have long questioned why it is men have a monopoly on this right. No one has been able to explain to me convincingly why it is I’m deprived of the right to polyandry,” she complains.

The outspoken Saudi then goes on to deconstruct and question the traditional justifications for polygamy, including that, in a traditional patriarchal society, it is a shelter for widows, divorcees and women who can’t find a spouse; that men have greater sexual appetites than women and get easily bored; that women can’t handle more than one man; and that, if women could have multiple husbands, determining paternity would not be possible (an excuse made obsolete by modern science).”

“They tell me that I, as a woman, can’t handle more than one man physically. I say that women who cheat on their husbands and the ‘sellers of love’ [ie. prostitutes] do much more,” she counters.

I have to agree: what makes people think that women are truly the weaker sex and can barely handle one man’s ferocious appetite for sex?

Because I know many women who play out of their relationships and marriages, and there’s a growing number of polyamorous types walking and living in this city.

And do think about it: with women being more educated and financially independent, what can ONE MAN offer her? Not all men are good in bed, you know.

One man for love, one man for money, one man for sex and one man for great deep meaningful conversation.

And before you boys get riled up and start waving your er, ‘keris’ to prove your manhood, observe the more up-market hotel lounges and coffeehouses. Those ladies who lunch and look like boiled eggs? You think the boys with them are their SONS?

So. Let’s say we want to halalkan zina. Perhaps by legitimising the affairs, women too should be allowed four husbands.

“Ha? You dah gila ke. Laki satu pun dah pening, nak empat lagi?” A friend was incredulous.

Ah, ladies. This is where we err. Allow me to quote a good friend who is KL’s style maven: Dzireena Mahadzir. In her last column she told us to think like a man. And to think like a man is to compartmentalise. Remember!

One man for love

One man for money.

One man for sex

One man for great deep meaningful conversation.

You repeat all the four lines 1,000 times a day in front of you mirror. InsyAllah.

I have this friend who’s a Shiite and she’s younger than me. Devout, she has had six husbands already.

“Oh my God, you’re only 30 and you’ve had six husbands?!”

“Dina, I kahwin mutaah! We Shiites can do so!”

“What on earth is that?” Kahwin lari I had heard. Mutaah no.

According to the Jakim website: “Nikah Mutaah (kahwin kontrak) iaitu meletakkan syarat untuk menjadi pasangan suami isteri buat sementara atau beberapa tahun sahaja.

Para fuqaha’ telah bersepakat telah menyatakan bahawa kahwin mut’ah hanya dibenarkan pada awal perkembangan Islam.Kebenaran pada masa itu adalah dengan tujuan untuk memperkembangkan Islam dan setelah hari pembukaan Mekah perkahwinan seperti itu telah diharamkan dan pengharaman tersebut adalah selama-lamanya. Ia bukan suatu yang bidaah atau yang baru diada-adakan cuma ada antara mazhab dalam Syiah yang membenarkan perkahwinan tersebut.

Dan pada masa ini, berlaku juga persetujuan bersama pasangan suami isteri tentang tempoh tertentu sebagai syarat perkahwinan untuk kepentingan peribadi, harta benda dan sebagainya samada disedari ataupun tidak bahawa meletakkan tempoh tertentu sebagai syarat itu pun menyebabkan tidak sah akad. .” [1], [2]

Wah, I also want la. I want to be Malaysia’s Elizabeth Taylor! I want I want!

Now what is the argument against polyandrous women?

The very enlightening and humorous book on genetics and evolution Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa explains what monogamy, polygyny and polyandry are. Monogamy is the marriage of one man to one woman while polygyny is the marriage of one man to more than one woman.

Polyandry is the marriage of one woman to more than one man. Polygamy is the more popular term for polygyny, though the term refers to both.

“Now, the fact that polyandry is very rare in human society decidedly does not mean that married women have always been faithful to their husbands and mated with one man. On the contrary, human females have been promiscuous throughout their evolutionary history.”

The issue of paternity arises as men decide to stake claims on their progeny, and while polygynous men would be able to discern whose child is whose (which wife), with polyandrous women, it would be much, much harder. Sperm from different males have to fight with each other to impregnate the female.

Which is why the human penis is shaped the way it is.

The book quoted Gordon G Gallup and his collaborators. “The shape of the human penis… is shaped like a wedge.”

When a human male and human female copulate, the thrusting motions the penis makes “would be to draw foreign semen back away from the cervix…

“So in the case of polyandrous females, their males partners will be competing to scoop out rival sperms.

“In other words, the human penis is a semen displacement service.”

It’s a shovel.

So there you have it, my dear readers. The scientific reason behind the move against polyandry: safeguarding your progeny. Me Tarzan you Jane and this is my monkey.

Truth is, at least among my women friends and me, fidelity and monogamy are the most practical options. I quote another friend, “Aiyo, kalau one man dah berapa round, ni nak empat, mati keras aku woi…”

Readers with no sense of humour are not allowed to read my column.

Readers who think they are smarter than everyone else who reads TMI are not allowed to read my column.

Readers who think they are the next Messiah and already have a place in Heaven definitely CANNOT read my column.

Unexpected Reunite

You came back into my life.
After almost 8 years...
Will never let you go again...

How I Almost Became a Terrorist

By ALAN J. SINGER
In May 1967 I was a seventeen-year old high school senior and a not particularly religious Jew. I was born in New York City, as were my parents, although my grandparents were immigrants from Eastern Europe. My family strongly identified with the state of Israel and at the time my stepmother was visiting her brother who had emigrated there to fight for independence after serving in the U.S. army during World War II.
The survival of Israel as a Jewish state was important to my identity and the identity of my friends and family members. My friends, siblings, cousins, and I grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust and we had family members who were murdered. Jews had been victims for two thousand years but the survival of Israel meant we would be victims no more.
As the crisis in the Middle East intensified Americans were evacuated. My father and I spent a night at Kennedy Airport waiting for my stepmother to return home. The next morning two friends and I went to the Jewish Agency to sign up to go to Israel as volunteers in the event of war. We hoped to fight but said we would do anything that was needed.
On June 5, 1967 Israel launched a preemptive strike. The Third Arab-Israeli War lasted six days and ended with a resounding Israeli victory. American volunteers were not needed so we never went. But we would have gone and we would have fought for the survival of Israel and of Jews, whether the United States government gave permission, looked the other way, or even if it tried to stop us.
I am no longer a Zionist and I have not supported Israeli policy, especially the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, since the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. I now see Israel as the aggressor in the region, but that is not the point. As a teenager, I would have defied the U.S. government and risked legal repercussions because of my strong sense of personal identity. I wanted to be a freedom fighter for my people.
What if events had been different? What if the war was prolonged and American Jews were needed for Israel to survive? What if the U.S. government, bogged down in South East Asia and dependent on Arab-controlled Middle Eastern oil, ended its support for Israel? What if a desperate Israel attacked civilian populations or even used nuclear weapons against its enemies?
My friends and I, loyal Americans from the Bronx, freedom fighters in defense of our people, would have been seen as enemy combatants, supporters of terrorism, maybe even as terrorists. Many Americans would have wondered, what motivated us to do such terrible things?
I don’t think this is such a big stretch, the United States reversing its position on Israel or us participating as combatants even when ordered not to. We were teenagers. The holocaust was still lived memory. Our existence as a people was threatened.
I have been a teacher for almost forty years and I do not believe the teenagers and young adults I work with are very different from the way my friends and I were when we were their ages. They are upset by what they see as injustice and that to see it rectified. Today, on a daily basis I read in the newspapers about Islamic young men and women who believe their people are under attack by a powerful enemy that disrespects their beliefs and traditions, occupies theirs lands, and is willing to use its military might to force its way of life on them. Like my friends and I forty years ago, their sense of identity requires that they rally in support of their people. They want to be freedom fighters also.
They are not monsters, they are not insane, nor are they are fanatics. To dismiss them in this way is to misunderstand their motives and leaves us incapable of dealing with them. They see themselves as fighting for a just cause. Whether they individually live or die is inconsequential. People they identify with as brothers and sisters are already dying because of their enemy’s actions. They want to participate; they want to do something that is historically worthwhile.
I do not believe in killing civilians. Whether it is done by suicide bombers or by military drones is not an act of heroism nor is it in any way justified. I recognize, and support the need of the United States to take precautions that protect its civilians and military personnel from attack.
But dismissing individuals and movements as terrorist for defying U.S. policies and responding in the only ways they have available to them is counterproductive. It prevents any resolution of the underlying conflict and it ensures new generations of disaffected young people will follow in their path.
As a secondary school teacher I learned that the best, perhaps only way to control a classroom of rambunctious teenagers is through organization and relationship. When classes and lessons are organized and students feel related to the teacher, ninety percent of the problems do not happen. All disruptive behavior does not end, there are always students who are having a bad day or a bad life for one reason or another.
Based on this experience as a teacher, I believe that when Islamic youth believe there is hope for the future, that they have dignity and that their religion is respected, that their lives will change for the better, and that there will be justice in the Middle East, the threat of attack will lessen significantly, although it will probably never end completely. Branding these young people as terrorists will just convince them that their view of the world is accurate and that they need to be martyrs.
Alan Singer is Director of Secondary Social Studies in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at Hofstra University. He can be reached at: catajs@hofstra.edu.

The Passing

Around 8pm today, my beloved mom, passed away right in front of my eyes on the hospital bed.