New Seahawk Percy Harvin may not be the same player he was in Minnesota

The Seattle Seahawks acquisition of Percy Harvin from the Minnesota Vikings raises some questions. Harvin was known to be available by the local sports commentators, and there was discussion concerning whether he would be a good "fit" on the team. After all, the team already had two young slot receivers in Golden Tate and Doug Baldwin, and there is always the possibility that they could "blossom" more than adequately into that position (and they don’t cost as much). On the other hand, Harvin—though an undeniable talent—is injury-prone and one of those "withdrawn" types who do not respond well to authority. Harvin would also likely require a bundle of money to keep on the roster, so while there was respect for what he could potentially bring to the table, there was no great enthusiasm to see him upset the balance. 

But once word came that he had been acquired for a significant price—including a first-round draft pick—people here were far from disappointed; after all, Pete Carroll and John Schneider—unlike the management on other teams like the Raiders or Bengals—have the alchemist's "golden" touch. Their judgment can be trusted implicitly and without question. Even when it appears they don't know what they are doing, one must take it on faith that they divine more than you do (i.e., Tarvaris Jackson). I’m not sure that Harvin will be the difference maker people here think he will be. My impression is that his numbers are most impressive when he is the first, second or third target, usually with a quarterback who is having issues with sitting in the pocket and seeing the field.

In 2009 as a rookie, he had quality numbers but he wasn’t by any stretch Brett Favre’s “go-to” guy; Favre was quite aware of Harvin’s limitations, and in the week 16 overtime game against Chicago (lost after a questionable fumble by Adrian Peterson), the Vikings ran the exact same corner route twice in consecutive plays in the waning seconds of regulation. The first time Harvin was the target, but he didn’t have the height to overreach the defender; the second attempt had the taller Sydney Rice run the route, and this time the pass was caught to tie the game. The following year Rice was out most of the season and Favre was hobbled with a bad ankle dating from the NFC Championship game against New Orleans. Harvin became the main target by default; he led the team with 87 receptions—which would be impressive, unless one considers the fact that the next two receivers, Michael Jenkins and Visanthe Shiancoe, combined for only 74 receptions between them. 

Over the past two seasons, Harvin has been Christian Ponder’s top target—in twenty games, the two have connected 131 times. But he has been more of a safety blanket for Ponder—who last season lived on the short game, averaging only 9.8 yards per pass completion. Harvin’s 62 pass receptions in 9 games was more than team follow-up Kyle Rudolph’s 53 receptions in 16 games. I’m not sure that this is necessarily an indication of Pro Bowl talent—or the fact that he is simply the primary option at the expense of the rest. It also should be pointed out that Harvin’s all-purpose numbers peaked his rookie season, and have decreased each subsequent season.

 I may be wrong, but I doubt that with a quarterback like Russell Wilson, Harvin’s particular skill set will be utilized to its fullest possibilities—provided he stays healthy and doesn’t get on the wrong side of Carroll, which is a possibility.

Keeping up with the blogosphere joneses

Just because I haven’t posted anything in almost a week, it doesn’t mean I haven’t been busy; I do, after all, have a day job that takes-up 18 hours of my time four days a week. Some people actually make a living at this kind of thing, like over at the Seattle Times, where people get paid six-figures to come-up with an opinion twice a week that may or may not be complete bovine scatology; just that they are employed by the paper is supposed to be reason enough for us to believe that they are credible. One of their columnists was apparently booted off the local section, probably for offending too many readers with commentary that sounded too much like unjust personal attacks. However, the paper couldn’t just fire her; her radicalized “fans” would have cried sexism, so she was shunted-off to offer opinions on local entertainment, where presumably she would have fewer opportunities to offend. Frankly, getting per diem to do the kind of things most of us would consider recreation (maybe even a luxury) is hardly “work” but fulltime pleasure; however, this person is still given the opportunity to occasionally berate readers about the travails of being a white woman in this society.

There are lots of people on the web who are far more glib than I am, and find it easier to knock-off an off-hand opinion; I can only do that if I can relate something to personal experience, or it is a subject I have a particular interest in, like various forms of hypocrisy, police abuses, history, film or music. Sometimes I draw from cultural influences that are of little interest to the current generation, such as classical literature; Voltaire’s Candide is my favorite book of fiction, and I lifted that passage from Tom Jones last week because I remembered it from reading the book the years ago, after watching the Oscar-winning film starring Albert Finney on television (I fondly remember another passage in the novel depicting a beautiful flower surrounded by those of a less delightful variety, but unfortunately its scent did not match its beauty—thus Fielding described Lady Bellaston’s bad breath). Otherwise, I spend much more time researching and reading than I do writing. I won’t walk into minefields like domestic violence or human sex trafficking blind; you have to arm yourself with facts that obliges the forces of runaway advocacy to explain the incongruities of their versions of reality. 

In the meantime, if I don’t post anything for days, it’s not because I haven’t written anything, but because I’m been working on several projects simultaneously and I’m not satisfied with any of them to post. I’ve been working on commentary on the late Hugo Chavez, the social implications of the Jodi Arias murder case, why voters should blame themselves and not Barack Obama for the current political stalemate, my investigation into the Looking for Mr. Goodbar-missing-on-DVD case, and a couple of other things; they’ll eventually make it on my blog. Or not; right now, the Michael Vick canceled book tour/death threats story has suddenly piqued my curiosity.

"ARGO" not the first attempt by the CIA to make a "movie"

Not too long ago the Academy Award for best film went to Argo. It was a loosely fact-based (emphasis on loosely) account of how a handful of Americans managed to escape the takeover by an Iranian mob—no doubt less “spontaneous” than an orchestrated event—of the U.S. embassy in 1979. From there the film purports to show how a CIA operative concocted a scheme whereas the Americans would be transformed into a Canadian film crew out on a location shoot for a sci-fi flick. The ruse worked, and the film provides us with a heroic perception of the CIA compared to that of Zero Dark Thirty, which without comment portrays the agency as a torture mill.

The CIA has not always been as successful in some of its other theatrical covert operations. Take for instance its attempts to depose Sukarno, the first president of independent Indonesia after World War II.  Although Sukarno attempted to foster friendly relations with the U.S., the discovery of CIA support of  rebels in 1957 exposed the fallacy of this policy. Sukarno would subsequently begin nationalizing Western-owned operations, and his political and economic leanings were regarded as “socialist” and Communist-inspired. This made him an early target in the Cold War period. Since he was a popular and well-respected leader in his own country—having led the fight for independence from the Dutch (which was the end game of Indonesia’s de facto collaboration with the Japanese, who drove out Dutch forces during the war)—the U.S. government wanted it to appear that his overthrow was an “internal” affair. 

To this end, the CIA lent support to PERMESTA—a rebel group consisting of ethnic groups who felt their interests were not being served by the central government dominated by the Javanese ethnic group. This service was provided mainly by “advisers” on the ground, military personal masquerading as “soldiers of fortune,” and B-26 bombers, supposedly flown by Indonesian rebel pilots. Unfortunately, CIA assistance proved too little and too late, and as John Prados noted in his book Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, rebel forces turned out to have more bluster than fight, either changing sides—gladly taking the Jakarta government’s offer of amnesty—or simply running away when fighting began. CIA personnel, finding themselves in a bit of a bind, had to explain themselves when their presence was exposed. Prados writes that

“The CIA training team made a hazardous trek to a stretch of unoccupied coast to commandeer a boat and head out to sea, where they were retrieved by the Tang. The cover story that they were big-game hunters caught in the crossfire of the rebellion had to be as ludicrous as the one they used on land…the CIA team were scientists hunting exotic butterflies.”

But this was nothing compared to an early attempt by the CIA to get into the film business. The Muslim Sukarno was a polygamist, and was known to like his women. Rumors that he had been blackmailed by a female Russian agent gave the CIA the idea that they could foment rebellion against him by distributing a pornographic film that purportedly depicted Sukarno in flagrante with a comely blonde Soviet spy. To this purpose, operatives allegedly sat through hundreds of porno films produced in the U.S., searching for someone who could pass for Sukarno and a woman who had Russian “features.” Having failed to do so, the CIA decided to produce its own film. According to historian Harry Blum, 

“The Agency developed a full-face mask of the Indonesian leader which was to be sent to Los Angeles where the police were to pay some porno-film actor to wear it during his big scene. This project resulted in at least some photographs, although they apparently were never used…Another outcome of the blackmail effort was a film produced for the CIA by Robert Maheu, former FBI agent and intimate of Howard Hughes. Maheu’s film starred an actor who resembled Sukarno. The ultimate fate of the film, which was entitled “Happy Days”, has not been reported.”

Meanwhile, the discovery of CIA efforts at regime change in Indonesia—particularly after CIA-employed pilot Allen Pope was captured after his B-26 was shot down—only served to unite, rather than divide the country, at least for a time. President John F. Kennedy sympathized with Sukarno’s perceived anti-American attitude, given all the attempts to depose him during the Eisenhower administration; but after Kennedy’s assassination, efforts were again renewed to depose him. The CIA abandoned its previous bizarre schemes, and resorted to tried and true methods, such as infiltrating student groups and running publishing companies that churned out books whose content was meant to undermine Sukarno’s rule. 

This story does not have a “heroic” finale. The CIA also worked to bankroll a right-wing “Council of Generals” whose eventual aim was to stage a coup against Sukarno late in 1965; a week before it was to occur, the coup was temporarily forestalled by junior officers led by the loyal head of the presidential palace guard, and six of the generals were killed. But the “revolt” was quickly suppressed, and Sukarno opponents used the event as an excuse to launch an anti-Communist bloodbath. Interestingly, the U.S. embassy had ready a list of thousands of alleged Communist in the country, and supplied the generals with this “death list.” Estimates vary, but with the aid of Islamic extremists in the country, probably a half-million people who may or may not have been members of, or sympathetic with, the Indonesian Communist Party were massacred within a month or two, ending their political influence. Although Sukarno remained as president for a few more years, the U.S.-supported General Suharto would effectively exercise power in the country for the next several decades.

Why the Violence Against Women Act is a money grab for activists not interested in "solving" the problem

Here I am, sidetracked again by that faithless acquaintance Hypocrisy. I encountered it again after glancing on the front page of the morning newspaper. Republicans ain’t budgin’ on the budget issue, but at least some of them are backtracking on their ossified position on some social issues (obviously for political viability reasons). In this spirit, while sequestration went into effect a few days ago,enough Republicans in the House crossed over to pass the Violence Against Women Act, which other than being political theater is supposed to provide monetary assistance to victims and shelters. As I’ve mentioned before, the primary demographic this is aimed at is the very small percentage of highly politicized white women of the Harriet Christian stripe, who didn’t want to vote for the black guy but were paranoid about what Republicans might do on abortion rights (which they did nothing to harm during the six years the right was in control of all three branches of government). The media keeps talking about how Democrats hold the “women’s vote,” but this is just white female journalists on a power trip; the fact of the matter is that white women are just a few percentage points as likely as white men to view the Republican as “their”—meaning the “white people’s”—party, as evidence by the fact that exit polls showed that 58 percent of them voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election. Given the nature of exit polls and minority candidates, this percentage may even have been higher.

But back to the point about hypocrisy. I occasionally have “breakfast” at a Jack in the Box near the airport before I show up for work, and those wee-hours of the morning are often frequented by some “characters.” Recently I observed what appeared for once to be a “normal” couple—normal for trailer park types—come inside and sit in a nearby cubicle, where they seemed to be engaged in casual conversation, although I wasn’t exactly paying attention to what they were saying. Then suddenly the woman swept the Jumbo Jack she had been nursing off the table onto the floor. She raised her voice, starting to curse the man and started kicking his legs with such force as to practically knock the table over. With a few more derogatory comments she got up and left. The man watched her leave, got up and picked-up the sandwich off the floor. In a voice drained of emotion he asked someone if he could borrow a cellphone, and shortly afterwards left. 

I observed several things from this encounter. One was that this female had no reservations about using physical violence. Another was that she gave it no thought that he would actually retaliate; perhaps she thought that because they were in public establishment, he wouldn’t dare do so (but people would “understand” her behavior). This wasn’t your “passive” victim; she was the aggressor. I also came away with the thought that just being in the same room with her for five minutes would amount to being subjected to “domestic violence.” It’s remarkable how it is politically incorrect to talk about domestic violence by women. I recall a former columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer mentioning an email he received from a police officer, who said that even when police responded to a domestic incident where it appeared that the female was the aggressor, if she claimed domestic violence it didn’t matter what the truth of the situation was; the man would be the one arrested and charged.

There was a time when people were not so “shy” about talking about domestic violence by women. That’s how Rip Van Winkle came to take his extended nap, and in Henry Fielding’s 18^th century literary classic Tom Jones, you will find this passage, which describes what happened when the mild-mannered school teacher Mr. Partridge is confronted by his homely wife, who harbored intense suspicions in regard to Jenny Jones, a servant girl and one of his pupils:

As fair Grimalkin, who, though the youngest of the feline family, degenerates not in ferocity from the elder branches of her house, and though inferior in strength, is equal in fierceness to the noble tiger himself, when a little mouse, whom it hath long tormented in sport, escapes from her clutches for a while, frets, scolds, growls, swears; but if the trunk, or box, behind which the mouse lay hid be again removed, she flies like lightning on her prey, and, with envenomed wrath, bites, scratches, mumbles, and tears the little animal. Not with less fury did Mrs Partridge fly on the poor pedagogue. Her tongue, teeth, and hands, fell all upon him at once. His wig was in an instant torn from his head, his shirt from his back, and from his face descended five streams of blood, denoting the number of claws with which nature had unhappily armed the enemy.

Mr Partridge acted for some time on the defensive only; indeed he attempted only to guard his face with his hands; but as he found that his antagonist abated nothing of her rage, he thought he might, at least, endeavour to disarm her, or rather to confine her arms; in doing which her cap fell off in the struggle, and her hair being too short to reach her shoulders, erected itself on her head; her stays likewise, which were laced through one single hole at the bottom, burst open; and her breasts, which were much more redundant than her hair, hung down below her middle; her face was likewise marked with the blood of her husband: her teeth gnashed with rage; and fire, such as sparkles from a smith's forge, darted from her eyes. So that, altogether, this Amazonian heroine might have been an object of terror to a much bolder man than Mr Partridge. He had, at length, the good fortune, by getting possession of her arms, to render those weapons which she wore at the ends of her fingers useless; which she no sooner perceived, than the softness of her sex prevailed over her rage, and she presently dissolved in tears, which soon after concluded in a fit.

Something tells me that nothing has changed in the translation since then; the movement from woman as aggressor to passive “victim” is perhaps the typical sequence of events in a domestic violence incident. 

Now once again I have to refer to “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey” released in 2011 by the Center for Disease Control, which save for the “sexual” part was entirely ignored by the media, despite the fact that it is the most thorough and detailed study of the problem. I’m not going minimize what the survey reports concerning domestic violence against women, especially since I know that there are some men out there who seem to feel that “respect” is something to be attained at the point of a fist, rather than the mind; some also seem to have the bully mentality, devolving into cowardice when confronted by someone who isn’t half their size.  Still others think that physical means is the only way to “change” or stop a disagreeable situation. As for the nature of women who engage in "aggressive" behavior, I’m not going to speculate, but something tells me they’ll find ways to rationalize it--with the help of the media and various biased "studies."

In regard to the survey, the numbers aren’t always clear as to their meaning, as there seems to be a great deal of overlap. According to table 4.1, 32.9 percent of women claim to be the victim of some form of  non-rape physical violence—from a simple slap to a beating—in their lifetimes. In another table, 30.3 percent report to being “slapped, pushed or shoved.” This could be multiple times, by different men; but this only has to occur once to a person to make the list. 17 percent of women reported to be “slammed against something” by their partner, 14 percent reported to be hit by a fist or hard object, and 11 percent reported being beaten. Since these numbers are not supported by actual crime statistics, assumptions have to be made in regard to their veracity. For those who insist, the survey indicates that 9.4 percent of women report to being forcibly raped in their lifetimes—a far lower incident rate that usually quoted, but the percentage is inflated by the media and activists to include anything that was not forced, but  “unwanted” or not explicitly consented to. 

But things become “interesting” in Table 4.2, which shows that 28.2 percent of men reported to be the victim of non-rape physical violence by their intimate partners—which amounts to a negligible difference in victimization rates between genders. Only half as many men reported to be the victim of “any severe physical violence” as women in their lifetimes; but the fact that the survey numbers are far from “negligible” for men indicates where the “silent” victimization really lies. Although the survey reports that “only” 2.6 percent of men reported to have been “beaten” by their intimate partner in their lifetimes, the fact that there are nearly 3 million men in this country who are victims of “beatings” by their intimate partners is not a “little” number. 

Under the heading “Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner,” the number of men and women who reported to be a victim of such is nearly split 50-50.  But if there is anything that is most “surprising” about the survey, it is that it seems to show that domestic violence perpetrated by men is decreasing—while that committed by women has either not changed or is increasing. The study asked respondents their level of victimization in the previous 12-month period; 4.5 percent of men reported to be the victim of physical violence by their partner, compared to 3.6 percent of women. In regard to “severe” physical violence, 43 percent of the victims are indicated as men, up from 32 percent overall. In regard to psychological “violence”—which admittedly is subject to sometimes quizzical definitions, but is something that women’s activists have used to prime the pump of “victimization”—the percentage went up to 55 percent of victims being men. Nearly 60 percent of victims of “coercive” control—as opposed to the nebulous “expressive aggression,” which is essentially name-calling—are male.

I’m afraid that I’m one of those “guys” whose mind goes blank at yet another of a parade of gender politics story, especially if it involves an element of mendacity like the issue of domestic violence does. The media deals with the issue of domestic violence as if only men are guilty of it, and when it is so narrowly focused it can’t help but be one of those issues (like gun violence) that causes a great fire, but is quickly extinguished from the public consciousness. The only people who are fooled are activists and activist journalists. I’m sure some women are not as sanguine about the issue, contrary to assumptions by the media. I remember reading  something somewhere in which a women’s shelter volunteer admitted that she was afraid of—not for—many of the alleged victims. 

So why would the media ignore a report that is probably the most thorough and detailed of its kind? Because it had the audacity to do something that other “studies” on domestic violence refuse to do: Include males in the survey. The fact is that domestic violence is one of those problems that can’t be “solved” by focusing only on men. And perhaps that is the “point,” isn’t it? As long as women are not held accountable for their own actions, they can be the perpetual “victims.” And as mentioned concerning the inflated numbers in the human trafficking game, the worse the activists can make it sound, the more money from donations and government payouts—as the Violence Against Women Act will do. This legislation  isn't meant to "solve" the problem because it is a political gambit; it deliberately refuses to address the behavior of women who contribute at least as much as men to the vicious cycle.

Better last than never for Mississippi

When people say things like “Our state ranks right there with Mississippi...” it usually infers something negative, as in near or at the bottom of whatever is being indexed. For example, The United Health Foundation ranks the state 49^th in the quality of health of its citizens, including last in obesity, diabetes and outcomes; this indicates poor diet, which usually has to do with poverty rates—which the state naturally ranks first in the nation. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress test, Mississippi children tested dead last overall. It ranks last in at least one ‘livability” ranking; it ranks at the bottom in median income—which makes being  “first” in income inequality even more disturbing, suggesting a society little changed from antebellum days. Of course, people in Mississippi defend their state against attacks by “ignorant” outsiders, although they admit that their problems are based on poor education and a largely rural society. 

I think it is also constructive to note that Mississippi has the highest percentage of self-reporting “conservatives”—53 percent. Perhaps this explains something that the state is also last in: Ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. It was only last month, after a brief campaign by Ranjan Batra—a professor at the University of Mississippi Medical Center—that a legislative resolution passing the amendment in 1995 was officially registered in the National Archives. Batra says that he was motivated to find out if the state had ratified the Thirteenth Amendment after attending a showing of the film Lincoln, and was surprised to discover that Mississippi was still officially ranked as the sole holdout to ratification.

Its ratification almost didn’t happen; black legislators pushed for an official ratification, but some Republicans derided the effort. Ratification’s biggest opponent was State senator Mike Gunn—known at the time for making comments like “If guns are outlawed, how can we shoot liberals?” and was generally regarded as right of the Ku Klux Klan; he was one of those racists who wants things to be just as they were 150 years ago, as evidenced by such patronizing mendacity as “We need to work on those things that bring racial harmony and reconciliation. Not those things that drive a wedge between the races, and this is one of those issues.” However, further embarrassment for the state was avoided when the resolution eventually passed, but strangely the state never officially notified the U.S. Archives; one wonders if this was done deliberately to pacify those unhappy about the development. 

Better last than never? Perhaps, but it is still yet another stain on an already dirty shirt.