January 08, 2006

A SEAL lesson

Navy SEALs are always taught:
1) Keep your priorities in order and
2) Know when to act without hesitation.

A Navy SEAL was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU. One day he shocked the class when he came in, looked to the ceiling, and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes." The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting."

It got down to the last couple of minutes when the SEAL got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The SEAL went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence.

The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the SEAL and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?" The SEAL calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole.

So He sent me."

(h/t: Mickey Devlin.)

UPDATE (1/9 at 3:31pm): Sorry if I assumed people would believe this a real anecdote. I laughed my arse off and suppose I was hasty in posting it. It sure made the Scourge look like he had some brains and that he "got" me, but, alas, I assumed and you know what happens when you "assume." I would have added an update earlier but I was at a thing called work.

Yes, as WitNit said in the comments (we like their term), this anecdote is apocryphal. It actually is a derivative of an old Einstein fable. Sorry for any confusion. And Scourge? We told you about your comments here. You disobeyed; that's why they were edited/deleted.

Posted by Rhodey at January 8, 2006 07:22 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Somehow,.....I doubt this is the truth.....but a nice visual.

Posted by: Nancy Willing at January 8, 2006 09:24 PM

What a bunch of suckers. You lot will fall for ANYTHING!

www.snopes.com


The next thing you know you will be saying that Saddam DID have WMD's.

Posted by: jason at January 9, 2006 09:34 AM

Jason, it's you who took the bait and confused the simple re-telling of an anecdote with some form of sworn testimony. Excuse me but I expected a highly nuanced lib like yourself was intelligent enough to grasp that concept.

Posted by: AJ Lynch at January 9, 2006 09:42 AM

[Comment deleted] -- Admin.

Posted by: jason at January 9, 2006 09:56 AM

If God sent His Son back to earth to straighten things out, the Republicans would crucify him all over again. And you know it.

Posted by: at January 9, 2006 10:07 AM

Oh my, don't get all het up over the urban legend, Jason, as anyone of sense knows that's what it is. There's no reason to bring partisan politics into it. Even I, a devout believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, could find the professor's patter offensive enough to cheer whoever knocked his butt off the platform.

And just before you spew, I've been a card-carrying, party-votin' Democrat for nigh on 17 years now.

Posted by: Bronwen at January 9, 2006 10:25 AM

Like any other parable it had a point. And as a Democrat, you should realize that the point of the parable was to set up all Democrats as the professor - a atheist, America-hating straw man.

The parable even has built-in plausible deniability - "I didn't say the professor was a Democrat!!" but the context says it all.

Posted by: at January 9, 2006 10:38 AM

[Comment deleted] -- Admin.

Posted by: jason at January 9, 2006 10:51 AM

The problem is, the soldier still didn't prove God's existence. The professor makes a point. He wins, even with the conk on his head.

Posted by: Mike M. at January 9, 2006 11:57 AM

The truly wacko subtext of this story is the implication that the US military is acting on orders from God.

Posted by: at January 9, 2006 01:07 PM

Thanks for the story. I stole it. It's very much in line with the SEALs I know, although it's apocryphal.

Posted by: WitNit at January 9, 2006 01:54 PM

t's very much in line with the SEALs I know

Did a little time in the brig, huh?

:-)


Posted by: at January 9, 2006 02:07 PM

For what it's worth, it sounded like an urban legend or fable to me when I read it.

Posted by: delathought at January 9, 2006 03:14 PM

[Comment deleted] -- Admin.

Posted by: jason at January 9, 2006 03:17 PM

If you say so.

Posted by: jason at January 9, 2006 03:45 PM

I have no idea how this post made people so angry that comments got deleted. But it's certainly dumb, and I'm sure people will remember it the next time the author gets indignant about "jokes" from the other end of the spectrum.

Posted by: dan at January 9, 2006 04:28 PM

Yeah dan -- we know how "fair minded" YOU are when it comes to dishing out the "balanced" joke/story telling etc.

Come on, man. You're beginning to need a dose of mikem to make you see a little reality, aren't you? And that's what we get (me, not Rhodey, mind you) for defending you. Thanks.

Posted by: Hube at January 9, 2006 04:36 PM

Hube, I don't mind this joke at all -- I just think that this is the type of things Rhodey-types complain about all the time, that's all. Thought that was clear, sorry.

And by the way...really? I've posted stuff like this before? I'm sure some liberal with too much time on their hands has come up with a "clever parable" about violence coming to conservatives, but I am pretty darn sure I have never posted such a thing.

Posted by: dan at January 9, 2006 04:58 PM

Not necessarily anecdotes like this, dan. But your epithets/hyperbole is rarely in short supply.

Posted by: Hube at January 9, 2006 05:20 PM

Not necessarily anecdotes like this, dan. But your epithets/hyperbole is rarely in short supply.

Well, thanks for noting that it's not the type of thing I'd post. But again, my original post simply said that it seems like the type of thing that Rhodey would complain about. I never said anything about me never being guilty of hyperbole or joke-making. And of course, on a separate note...I was, after all, directing that to Rhodey, not you...even though I know you're the spokesblogger.

I do appreciate you defending me, Hube. And for your being the most reality-based, fair, thought-provoking contributor to this site (and you'd be that at most conservative sites). But if you don't respect me, you really don't have to defend me. I feel like -- perhaps because you haven't met me in person, I have a real small margin for error. Sometimes I get a bit of the "troll" treatment when the comment really doesn't seem to warrant it. (No...no mikem, I implore you!)

Perhaps the solution is a lunch during my next trip to the Philly area. You trashed Dana (who I'm pretty darn sure is to the left of me) pretty healthily before that dinner you had. And I shudder to think of just how pissed off you'd be at me if I wrote half the stuff Mike M. writes. (no offense Mike.... great blog!)

Anyway, sorry. Didn't mean to get all touchy-feely. Just like a damn liberal.

Posted by: dan at January 9, 2006 06:17 PM

Two last things....

Thanks to Felix for calling me a "sensible" lefty and linking to my "Brokeback" post. I don't know if you'd see it if I posted in the comments that far back.

Also...did anyone mention in the Shalit discussions that Shalit has a gay son?? I was cruising around the 'net trying to put that comment into some context, and discovered that. Not only that, he wrote some loving op-ed about him in the Advocate some years back. So it's a little odd that GLAAD got so bent out of shape. The remark was pretty bizarre, given what I know of the plot. But you have to consider the speaker, not just the words.

Posted by: dan at January 9, 2006 06:22 PM

The scourge is boasting at his "blog" that Rhodey is lying about this whole deal b/c scourge "called him on it." Hmm, let's see --

1. I'd believe Rhodey over scourge any day;
2. Scourge is about as believable on ANY subject as he claims George Bush is;
3. Scourge earlier had claimed we here had posted (forget who it was at the moment, maybe even me) an urban legend (think it was about some Christmas gift), yet there was absolutely NO proof of it being false. Did scourge apologize? Hell no. Rhodey at least has admitted his error here for failing to note the authenticity (or lack thereof) of this anecdote.
4. Scourge has been proven a fool throughout the DE blogosphere numerous times. In fact, too many times to count. So, I guess we can grant him a tiny amount of satisfaction for catching his clear intellectual superior in a minor boo-boo.

Posted by: Hube at January 9, 2006 06:37 PM

dan: Well-stated. I admit I can get defensive about the other contribs here, especially since they rarely comment outside of posts (their choice, except for Rhodey on admin. matters). AND -- I definitely appreciate your kind words about my own posts. Much obliged!

For the record, Dana trashed ME pretty darned good, too, before me buried the hatchet! ;-) We're setting up yet another DE bloggers dinner shortly, too, BTW.

I'd TOTALLY be up for lunch or dinner in Philly when you're in town. You're completely correct -- comments in blogs, just like e-mail, can lead to misunderstandings way too often. Since you're a big sports buff, like me, we'd have tons to rap about besides politics!

For the record, since meeting Dana more than once, I've really come to respect and like him. He's a genuinely friendly guy who I'd have no problem just hanging out with drinking a few beers!

Posted by: Hube at January 9, 2006 06:45 PM

Also...did anyone mention in the Shalit discussions that Shalit has a gay son?? I was cruising around the 'net trying to put that comment into some context...

No pun intended there, dan? ;-)

Posted by: Hube at January 9, 2006 07:14 PM

Oh, here's that other post the scourge said was an urban legend, but still hasn't proved it. For those "keeping score." ;-)

Posted by: Hube at January 9, 2006 07:34 PM

You're completely correct -- comments in blogs, just like e-mail, can lead to misunderstandings way too often.

Yes, it's really quite a problem. I sometimes gape in astonishment at the stuff people will say in the comments of partisan blogs that they would never say in person.

In any event, I agree with you all around and will certainly let you know if I'm ever in the area. Thanks.

So Jason is "The Scourge"? What's the URL for his blog?

Posted by: dan at January 10, 2006 01:27 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?