In who is worse off in wage disparities, it depends on who controls the message

This past Friday another batch of statistics was released in which yet again we are battered with the women victimization syndrome. I didn’t bother reading the story that appeared on the front page of Saturday’s Seattle Times concerning the gender wage gap, since it isn’t supposed to change, ever.  Here we have myths “debunking” other “myths,” and no one is much interested in the reality on the ground.

For example, you can’t simply compare age groups and draw a “conclusion” from that. One “study” from the radical women’s advocacy group American Association of University Women—perpetrator of a host of outrageously fraudulent “studies” like the one-in-three college women are raped—“debunks” the claim that overall wage differences are in large part due to lower-wage service occupations that are top-heavy with female employees. But reality tells us that if a retail store employs 100 low-wage workers of whom 90 percent are women, and an engineering firm in which 9 of 10 high-wage employees are men, and you only use the average wage by gender without taking into consideration the number employed within those occupations, of course the wage of the men counted is going to be higher; that doesn’t mean, however, that there is wage inequality here—unless, of course, you think that everyone should be paid the same wage. However, I suspect that even female engineers expect to make more money than a store clerk—male or female.

Women’s advocates like to say that they are “discriminated” against in the job market, but that is another fallacy. In many job descriptions, women—especially white women—are the “preferred” hire, and not just in office environments. I’ve told this story before, but I’ll repeat it: I was working for a temp agency in Sacramento when I was sent to a firm involved in putting together mailers, nothing too difficult. But at the end of the day, the supervisor gathered us together and proceeded to count out certain people, and told the rest of us we would not be needed henceforth. This wasn’t a “random” drawing or based on merit; it was every white female who was picked out. The rest of—males and minority females—were, to put it bluntly, the victims of blatant discrimination. I recall angrily telling the supervisor that the rest of us needed the work too; my audacity seemed to shock the rest of my fellow unemployed.

Another reality is that white female advocates in and out of the media control how this issue is presented. They call themselves “victims,” but this really about power and personal cupidity. Since they are so self-serving, naturally they are blinded to the role race plays in this. A few years ago in response to an email, a black female journalist employed by one of the local newspapers confessed to me that she recalled attending a women’s conference in which she and the only other black woman present in a sea of white females were asked if they considered “sexism” a greater detriment on their lives than racism; considering the circumstances, it was an easy call to make. She noted the “shock” in the room when she stated that racism was the greater factor.

White female advocates simply refuse to recognize that their “whiteness” is more important than their gender in this country. There is no doubt that they use minority women so that they can avoid the issue of how racism helps themselves. I’m sure those white women at that conference probably think that if anyone should be “replaced” in a job by a minority it should be a male, not one of their number; if that was the case, I’m certain that at least privately—or at the ballot box, as was the case in the anti-affirmative action I-200, or in Supreme Court cases in which a white female student was the “victim”—they’d think about their racial “privilege” a bit more.

What makes this mendacity all the more difficult to take is the fact that the wage gap between races is far more significant—especially considering the fact that a close look at workforce statistics indicate that as much as 40 percent of all black males are not employed—either unemployed, “dropped out,” or in jail. They have certainly been hurt in many job sectors by the influx of women in the job market, especially white women whose unemployment rates are only a quarter that of black males.

In fact, despite the high percentage of black male athletes making millions of dollars, this only makes the overall wage picture even more bleak for the rest. Women make 77 percent of what men make overall. But since black and Hispanic women make even less than that, obviously there is a little funny business going on in the “interpretation” of the statistics. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not the invented stats from the advocates, black males make just 74.5 percent of what white men make—not much of an improvement over the 69 percent in 1970. Hispanic men make even less—65.9 percent, compared to 58.7 percent in 1970.

White women, however, have improved dramatically—from 59 percent in 1970 to over 80 percent now. Black and Hispanic women are obviously worse off compared to white males—69 and 60 percent respectively; however, their levels of pay have also jumped far more radically than their male counterparts, to the point where minority male and female wages are quite close. It also should be pointed out again that white females have far lower unemployment rates than minority women, and their total numbers in the workforce have an out-of-proportion impact on the average “gender” wage.

Why is so much more attention put on gender wage gaps than the far more significant gaps between racial groups?  As I mentioned before, it is about who controls the information and how it is delivered. Obviously, white females have far more power in this regard than they pretend.

NFL franchises still pining for Super seasons

Since there are no football games worth noting this week, I thought I’d touch on a topic of mild interest to me. Whether the Seattle Seahawks win the Super Bowl or not, they can at least boast of having been there not once, but twice. They certainly have more to talk about than, say, the Seattle Mariners, who along with the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals are the only franchises in baseball never to advance to the World Series. In the NFL, four teams can lay claim to never advancing to football’s penultimate game, although two have won titles in the pre-Super Bowl era.  The Houston Texans are one team that failed to make it, but they have only been in the league since 2002; the following three are more noteworthy in their absence:

Cleveland Browns: During the 1940s and 50s the Browns were one of the most dominate teams the NFL had seen up to that point. The Browns won four straight championships in the upstart AAFC, and after it and two other teams—the San Francisco 49ers, and the Baltimore Colts in its first life—merged with the NFL in 1950,  the complacent older league was stunned when the Browns played in 7 NFL title games in the next 8 years, winning three times. In 1964 the Browns defeated the Colts 27-0 for its fourth NFL title. But that success seems really ancient history now.  The Browns have not had a winning season since 2007, and even then failed to make the playoffs. In the last 24 seasons they have reached .500 or better just three times. The team’s last playoff appearance was in 2002, and its last playoff win came in 1994 when Bill Belichick was coach.

But during a four year stretch under coach Marty Schottenheimer the Browns did play in three AFC championship games. On January 11, 1987, Browns lost in overtime to the Denver Broncos 23-20 after blowing a 20-13 fourth quarter lead when John Elway drove the Broncos 98 yards for the tying score late in the game.  On January 17, 1988 against the Broncos, the Browns rallied from a 21-3 halftime deficit to tie the game at 31 early in the fourth quarter, only to fall 38-33 after the infamous “The Fumble” when Earnest Byner lost the football as he was running in for the tying score. On January 14, 1990 the Browns again faced-off against the Broncos. The Browns fell behind 24-7, rallied to within a field goal before losing going away 37-21. Interestingly, the Broncos went on to drubbings in the Super Bowl following each of those games.

Jacksonville Jaguars: Before he coached the New York Giants to two improbable Super Bowl victories over the heavily favored New England Patriots, Tom Coughlin led the expansion Jacksonville Jaguars to two AFC championship games in its first five seasons. On January 12, 1997, the Jaguars lost 20-6 to the Bill Parcells-coached New England Patriots, who went on to lose to Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers in the Super Bowl. In 1999, the Jaguars had a surprising 14-2 season in which they completely stumped the Vegas line, going on to crush the Miami Dolphins 62-7 in the most lopsided playoff game in the Super Bowl era. But on January 23, 2000 the Jaguars were themselves beaten by the Tennessee Titans 33-14 in a sloppy game that featured 10 turnovers.  The Jaguars have made the playoffs only twice since then.

Detroit Lions: When it comes right down to it, the Lions are the most hapless team in the league. “Boasting” the “title” as the only team in NFL history to lose 16 games in a season, no other team in the league at the moment has had a worse run of ineptitude—and we are talking about the Wild Card playoff era. To be fair, the Lions are one of the oldest franchises in the NFL, dating back to 1930, and were NFL champs four times—the last in 1957 following a 31-27 playoff victory over San Francisco after trailing 27-7. In the championship game, Tobin Rote completed 12 of 19 passes for 280 yards and four touchdowns as the Lions throttled the Cleveland Browns 59-14, whose rookie sensation Jim Brown was held to 69 yards rushing on 20 carries.

But since then the Lions have been in the dumper, winning just one playoff game in 11 tries; that last playoff victory was on January 5, 1992 when they humiliated Jimmy Johnson’s Dallas Cowboys, 38-6, before that team went on to win three Super Bowls in four seasons. The Lions would advance to their only NFC championship game, only to be thrashed 41-10 by the Washington Redskins, who went on to beat Buffalo in the Super Bowl.

When the object of hate is accused of "hate"

There have been a few “hate” crimes in Seattle recently. Last May some out-of-towners—including a young male visiting from Alabama and two from Florida—beat a black male on Capitol Hill. Before anyone thinks that he was just some gang-banger thug type, the five apparently took him to be an effeminate “gay” individual, which generally means that the “thug” stereotype only applied to the perpetrators. This month, a white male, Mitchell Munro Taylor, was charged with “cyberstalking” and hate crimes in regard to Internet postings that were racial and homophobic in nature; his targets were Seattle mayor Ed Murray (who is openly gay) and Councilwoman Kshama Sawant, who is of Indian “ethnicity.”  

Taylor also mentioned that he wanted to kill “Mexican babies.” One of the great ironies of this society is that despite the poisonous atmosphere of hate that immigrants of Latino “ethnicity” often must endure during election cycles, and via the imagery provided by the media (Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are just the worst “mainstream” examples), this is rarely acknowledged or even believed. The attitude that Latinos are unwanted interlopers, stealing jobs, draining public funds and—despite most being U.S. citizens—not “real” Americans but an alien presence with an alien “culture” can’t help but to have an effect on the psyche of the scapegoated group. This is particularly true of those who are native-born Americans, yet are not “differentiated” in regard to legal status—because they all “look the same.” For some reason, people think that this is “OK”—that it isn’t racist or state-sponsored hate.

In Seattle, however, there is no one who “hates” Latinos, despite the vitriol you read on the Seattle Times’ comments sections whenever the subject of Latinos (illegal or otherwise) makes it into the paper. Only Latinos “hate.” I recall an incident a few years ago in which a Latino was escorted out of Seahawks game because he was drunk. Since alcohol is a “staple” at Seahawks games, I’m sure he thought he was being “singled out” because he was Latino. He was forcibly put in a taxi whose driver was a man wearing a turban, signifying that he was Sikh, who was told to take him home. Most taxi drivers in Seattle seem to be African or South Asian immigrants, so I suppose what followed wasn’t “personal,” just “business.” The Latino male allegedly started ranting about the Sikh’s “ethnicity” and allegedly struck him. He was subsequently charged with a “hate” crime. What if anything the Sikh said that might have exacerbated the situation was not noted.

Now there is this story about how a drunken Latino male named Andrew Belasco charged with “malicious harassment” toward two Saudi Arabian college students “for no reason,” and then for “no reason” threatened to “sexually assault” one their mothers. Belasco allegedly punched one the “victims” when he was ordered off the bus. Again, I find it hard to believe that Belasco simply “went off” on these people without some personal offense being taken initially.  While I certainly don’t condone violence, I can understand where certain feelings derive.

For example, there is a convenience mart/gas station in Kent that I used to stop at on occasion, but no longer do because the proprietors always gave me the impression that they thought  I was there to steal something; they were Sikhs. Other times I encounter immigrants from other countries who speak to me in rude, contemptuous terms that leave me thinking “I am a native-born American citizen, and these people come over here and treat me like I’m something on the bottom of their shoes?” But then I remember that they assume because of my “ethnic” appearance that I am also an immigrant, and because all of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is directed at those of Latino “ethnicity,” they think that they have leave to engage in this particular brand of Americana. Things can be more complicated than that, of course; given that some Latinos are “European” whites, the societal separation between them and those with mixed or indigenous blood also is cause of a great deal of resentment.

Meanwhile, blacks are rarely—if ever—accused of hate crimes, even if some interracial crimes are racially-motivated; the assumption is that they are either just thugs, or reacting from “understood” racial grievances. As seen in the George Zimmerman case, Latinos are also “perpetrators,” although the grievance against them goes well beyond a violent encounter on a dark night whose nature is the exception and not the norm. Yet Latinos are always lumped in with blacks by bigots, with shared negative “traits.” However, Latinos are not allowed to voice opinions about the racism they encounter, and when resentment comes to the surface, it is not taken seriously, or more often, taken as “evidence” of another negative trait.

If you are Latino you can’t avoid a certain amount of self-consciousness about this. No one understands, or wants to. You have to “accept” your lot in life, or the position you have been allotted. If you complain, you are a troublemaker—or worse, accused of a “hate” crime. 

Benghazi report suggests that politics and Clinton's reputation were behind the "decisions" on diplomatic security issues

The U.S. Senate’s recently completed investigation of the Benghazi tragedy apparently didn’t satisfy many Republicans, who used it to further their own partisan political agendas. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was only mentioned in Republican investigators final remarks, was accused of bearing ultimate responsibility for the incident, since the temporary mission facilities in which Libyan ambassador Christopher Stevens and others lost their lives following a militant attack did not meet expected security requirements, and it was the Secretary of State who had to give final clearance for the mission to be operational. It may have been that Stevens was intent on keeping the mission open despite the issues, although one wonders how much attention Clinton  paid to the many intelligence reports coming out of Libya and Benghazi--taking a more "personal" view of the situation rather than recognize the potential for trouble that could come back to haunt the administration if there was a serious security breach. Clinton did belatedly take “responsibility” for the tragedy; however, one gets the impression that she only did so to “enhance” her own reputation rather than actually believing she was “responsible.” One suspects that her many disciples certainly believe this.

At any rate, the Benghazi report details three separate attacks the night of September 11, 2012 on the mission and the CIA annex by militants likely supported by Al-Qaeda elements. Interestingly, the annex was only a seven minute drive away from the mission, but despite being notified almost immediately that that mission was under attack (9:40 PM), it took 23 minutes for the first relief force to leave. Suggestions that there was an initial “stand down” order (as had been charged by a British security operative) were not verified. A later attack on the annex at around 5:15 AM killed two Americans, and it was decided to evacuate all Americans in the vicinity, including Ambassador Stevens, whose body had initially been taken by the Libyans to a local hospital.

The investigation details several reports in the prior months concerned about the deteriorating security situation surrounding the American facilities:

June 18, 2012. The Pentagon's Joint Staff produced a slide in its daily intelligence report entitled, "(U) Terrorism: Conditions Ripe for More Attacks, Terrorist Safe Haven in Libya." In the slide, the Joint Staff assessed: support will increase Libyan terrorist capability in the permissive post-revolution security environment. Attacks will also increase in number and lethality as terrorists connect with AQ associates in Libya. Areas of eastern will become a safe haven.

July 6, 2012. CIA produced a report entitled, "Libya: Al-Qa'ida Establishing Sanctuary." In the report, CIA stated: "AI-Qa'ida-affiliated groups and associates are exploiting the permissive security environment in Libya to enhance their capabilities and expand their operational reach. This year, Muhammad Jamal's Egypt-based network, al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and ai-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have conducted training, built communication networks, and facilitated extremist travel across North Africa from their safe haven in parts of eastern Libya."

August 19, 2012. The Pentagon's Joint Staff produced a slide in its daily intelligence report entitled, "(U) Libya: Terrorists to Increase Strength During Next Six Months." In the slide, the Joint Staff stated: "There are no near-term prospects for a reversal in the trend towards a terrorist safe haven in Libya, and areas of eastern Libya will likely become a broader safe haven by the end of 2012. The conditions in Libya will allow terrorists to increase attacks against Western and Libyan interests in the country, as well as attempt attacks in the region and possibly Europe in the next six moilths."

September 5, 2012. AFRICOM produced a Theater Analysis Report entitled, "(U) Libya: Extremism in Li and Future." The report contained a map showing how are actively exploiting the open operating environment in Libya." (The map is located in Appendix IV of this report). The report also noted: "Disarray in Libya's security services, and a likely focus by authorities on pursuit of Qadhafi loyalists is likely allowing jihadists in Libya freedom to recruit, train, and facilitate the movement of fighters and weapons. The threat to Western and U.S. interests and individuals remains high, particularly in northeast Libya.

On August 15, Stevens raised the issue of the “deteriorating security situation” at an Emergency Action Committee meeting, and the concerns from this meeting were transmitted to the State Department the next day. Despite these warnings, the report noted that “few significant improvements were made by the State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility.” Although there were the “minimum” number of agents located at the mission, these were clearly inadequate given militant activity in the area and lack of Libyan government control of “security” elements. Furthermore, there seemed to be “very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security concerns” which were a “potential root cause for the confusion, lack of clear lines of authority, and communication at the headquarters level.”

\

Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy came under fire in the report for having direct knowledge of the various reports and number of personnel on the ground, and not responding adequately (or at all) to the situation. But it was Charlene Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs and primarily responsible for diplomatic security arrangements, who came under the most fire in the report. Lamb's appointment to her post earlier that year was apparently opposed by many old hands in the State Department; since she had held similar smaller scale posts in the past, it is curious why they believed she was inadequately qualified. However, she was apparently a favorite of Clinton, and long-time Clinton firewall Cheryl Mills overrode their objections.

The report concluded that Lamb was “less than forthcoming” and generally unresponsive to investigators’ questions concerning how security decisions were made, particularly in regard to Libya. However, testimony by Eric Nordstrom, who until shortly before the attacks was the Regional Security Officer in Libya, was particularly damning not just about Lamb, but ultimately her boss:

…that Ms. Lamb and other senior State Department officials were unreceptive to repeated requests from the Libyan mission regarding security personnel in both Tripoli and Benghazi. According to Mr. Nordstrom, the previous U.S. Ambassador to Libya, GeneCretz, and his Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), Joan Polaschik, traveled to Washington in mid-February 2012 to specifically ask for additional security personnel. In addition to meeting with Ms. Lamb, they met separately with Mr. Kennedy and other senior officials. Yet, when the Libyan mission transmitted its official request for additional security personnel on March 28, 2012, the push back from Ms. Lamb's office was swift and significant. While the request, which included five temporary duty Diplomatic Security agents in Benghazi, was clearly reasonable, one of Ms. Lamb's subordinates asked Mr. Nordstrom why the official cable sought "the sun, the moon, and the stars." When Mr. Nordstrom stated that he did not understand why this was an issue, the response from Ms. Lamb's office was telling: "Well, you know, this is a political game. You have to not make us look bad here, that we're not being responsive." In a disturbingly prophetic e-mail to DCM Polaschik following this exchange, Mr. Nordstrom wrote: I doubt we will ever get [Diplomatic Security] to admit in writing what I was told [in] reference [to] Benghazi that OV[International Programs] was directed by Deputy Assistant Secretary Lamb to cap the agents in Benghazi at 3, and force post to hire local drivers. This is apparently a verbal policy only but one which DSIIP/[Near Eastern Affairs] doesn't plan to violate. I hope that nobody is injured as a result of an incident in Benghazi, since it would be particularly embarrassing to both DS and DAS [Lamb] if it was a result of some sort of game they are playing. According to Mr. Nordstrom, Ms. Lamb was also vocal about her unwillingness to provide additional security personnel, including support of an extension of the Department of Defense (DoD) Site Security Team. Mr. Nordstrom told the Committee that Ms. Lamb claimed it would be embarrassing and give Libya more security agents than in Yemen and Pakistan.

One may recall that Clinton took a great deal of credit—or was given it by an overly fawning media—for the “success” of the Libyan intervention. But her key subordinate overseeing diplomatic security apparently “understood” that she was not to make Clinton “look bad” by any suggestion that diplomats there might be in danger, and that she did not want to be seen as an incompetent administrator. But there might have been more to this, though not noted in the report: That there may have been some “jealousy” by Clinton and her inner circle in regard to Stephens’ long and distinguished career as a diplomat, and she preferred to leave him to fend for himself in Benghazi.

Interestingly, Ralph Nader had this to say about Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State: “Behind the public relations sheen, the photo-opportunities with groups of poor people in the developing world, an ever more militarized State Department operated under Clinton’s leadership.” This hard talk was hardly in evidence in regard to Benghazi; it would seem that Clinton and her political underlings preferred to leave our own diplomats there to the wolves.

Sherman rant less the "story" of NFC title game than the 49ers future--or lack thereof--with Kaepernick as quarterback

There is no better way to make me a “fan” of a team I don’t really care about by essentially disparaging that team and its players by implying that their opponent lost because they didn’t play up to their own “standards.” Part of that included spending all day after about either Richard Sherman or Colin Kaepernick. Outside of true football fans like ESPN’s Mike and Mike, the talk about Sherman was unrelievedly negative. First off, Brian Billick can call Sherman “bush league” all he wants, but Michael Crabtree isn’t the most popular player in league either—in fact, a few years ago he was voted by other players has the eighth most overrated player in league. Tom Brady “illuminated” his thoughts on Sherman; frankly, he ought to just go home with his super model wife and stop whining and throwing teammates under the bus like he has all season. And people thinks he is “class”? He’s a diva. Then the Packers’ A.J. Hawk weighed in about Sherman; I wish he’d worry more about his own lack of production these last few years. Hawk has never really lived-up to his hype since leaving Ohio State. Any idea that he is “good” depends upon whether a real Pro Bowler like Clay Mathews is around for people not to notice that Hawk is not really that special.

I don’t have a problem with what Sherman did or said; I think that the main problem was his violent tone during his postgame “interview” with Erin Andrews. The “you” he accused of disrespect was not Andrews of course, but Crabtree; but he might as well have been putting the media in his sights as well. There was an expectation from virtually everyone on ESPN and elsewhere that San Francisco was going to win the game, that they were the “better” team with “superior” playmakers like Anquan Boldin, Vernon Davis, Frank Gore and Crabtree. Chris Carter (who never played in a Super Bowl) was particularly offensive in his disparaging comments about who was on the other side. The Vegas line even had it “even” despite the clear advantage the Seahawks had playing at home, and seemingly ignoring the fact that the 49ers were playing a less banged-up (Green Bay) and more balanced team this time around, certainly more than Carolina—five of its last seven wins were by a combined 14 points.

After the loss, Kaepernick was praised for being “big” by putting the loss on himself, and the media agreeing that he will need to improve and “will,” but I’m not buying this potential “superstar” business. A quarterback as limited as he is bound to have problems facing a secondary like the Seahawks. Is he “smart” enough to overcome his inability to read defenses? Can he overcome his tunnel vision that is like red meat for top defenses? Consider: Boldin and Davis combined for 137 of  Kaepernick’s 243 completions during the regular season, 2029 of his 3197 yards—and rather  shockingly, 20 of his 21 touchdown passes; Crabtree had the lone remaining touchdown catch in the five games he played. What does this suggest? That when the 49ers did pass the ball a league low 417, it was predictable who Kaepernick’s was going to throw it to. It is easy to be a “playmaker” if you have a quarterback whose field of vision and decision-making is limited to you as the first—and only—“option.” 

Kaepernick may be physically "gifted," but is that sufficient to overcome what is between his ears? What is he listening to with those headphones anyways? I personally think that 49ers with Kaepernick as quarterback will have a brief window of Super Bowl-caliber potential.

Offensively uneven Seahawks in Super Bowl thanks to defense's exposure of Kaepernick's limitations

After a lost opportunity for the New England Patriots—who allowed Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos’ offense to move up and down the field literally at will, and yet who managed to score “only” 26 points—it appeared for a time that the only scenario in which I would prefer to see Manning win the Super Bowl might come about. That would have been if the San Francisco 49ers had won the NFC title game, which appeared might happen after a lifeless first-half from the Seattle Seahawks. Being a Green Bay Packer fan, I had more substantial reasons to despise the 49ers than Manning; fortunately, that awkward situation was avoided as the Seahawks staged a remarkable second-half recovery to outlast the 49ers 23-17.

I must confess that the stereo headphone commercial featuring Colin Kaepernick walking through a surly crowd really irritated me. ESPN and the NFL Network have been drooling all over this guy, and it was no secret that the 49ers were their team of choice to go to the Super Bowl. Before the game, it had already been broadcast that it was predicted that a Broncos-Seahawks Super Bowl would be lowest rated ever; was this meant to be a subtle “hint” to game officials? Despite complaints from 49er fans about the game’s officiating, I felt that something was amiss on the third down holding penalty on Richard Sherman deep in the 49ers’ end in the second-quarter; this was just the sort of call that the party favorite would get. Kaepernick took advantage of a new set of downs, breaking away on 58-yard run which put the 49ers in position to take a 10-0 lead.

But in reality, Kaepernick’s long run, and his 130 total yards rushing, only put greater light on his limitations as a passer. As a quarterback, he is like some guy in a card or chess game whose strategy and tactics have you baffled—that is until you figure out he doesn’t know what the hell he is doing, Under pressure in the fourth quarter, Kaepernick fumbled and tossed two interceptions on the 49ers last three drives; this is what lost the 49ers the game—not the officials. For a game some observer are already calling a “classic,” it was a remarkably sloppy affair in the fourth quarter where most of the action occurred, with Kaepernick’s “sloppiness” having the most tangible results in the final score. Although the Seahawks’ Russell Wilson fumbled on his first snap, he at least kept his head  situated just firmly enough to avoid making the foolish plays that repeatedly haunted his counterpart.

Commenting on Kaepernick’s first interception by Kam Chancellor, Deion Sanders on the NFL Network noted Kaepernick’s inability to read coverage, while during the broadcast Troy Aikman called it a “terrible decision and a terrible throw” while pointing out that Kaepernick had been extremely fortunate that Green Bay and Carolina failed to take advantage of such mistakes. Time and again in the past and in this game despite an awkward throwing motion, fortune smiled on Kaepernick. Somehow, despite just kind of chucking the ball, he managed to put it in Anquan Boldin’s hands to put the 49ers up 17-10 in the third quarter.

But you can count on such luck only so often.  In last year’s Super Bowl with the game in the balance, Kaepernick targeted Michael Crabtree three straight times on the exact same route, which for a defense of the caliber of the Baltimore Ravens’ was like giving out the answers on pop quiz. And in this game against the best secondary in the NFL, even an out-of-position Richard Sherman was on top of the anticipated throw to Crabtree; Sherman’s remarkably savvy play on the ball with 22 seconds remaining—tipping the ball to the only player in position to catch it, teammate Malcolm Smith—put a fork in what would have been an extremely unappetizing result.

Still, the Seahawks could not help but put themselves in a position to lose this game with continued haphazard offensive play. 40 percent of their first-half yardage output occurred on a 51-yard pass play from Russell Wilson to Doug Baldwin, leading to the Seahawks only points in the first-half. Trailing 17-13 and facing fourth and 7 at the San Francisco 35 in the fourth-quarter, coach Pete Carroll decided to forgo a field goal attempt and throw the dice. But even if the 49ers jumped offside on a hard count, it still would have been a fourth down situation; if the Seahawks had then decided to kick a field goal to make the score 17-16, then the ending of the game would have had a much less satisfactory result based on what subsequently occurred. Thus it was stroke of immense good fortune that a defensive encroachment flag allowed a free play, which Jermaine Kearse somehow made a play in the end zone on a jump pass from Wilson.

Then after Kaepernick’s strip fumble put Seattle in position to put the game away, a botched hand-off ended that possibility. The Seahawks then failed to take full advantage of Chancellor’s interception, settling for a field goal that allowed the 49ers the chance to win the game in the final seconds. That came within a whisker of happening; such a result would have been profoundly difficult to accept, given the feeling that the 49ers would be going their second straight Super Bowl in spite of—not because of—their quarterback.

The Super Bowl will now be a contest between the #1 defense and #1 offense in the league. They say that defense wins championships, but the Seahawks may have a hard time convincing observers that they are better positioned offensively than the 49ers to take advantage of Denver’s often porous defense, which allowed 25 points per game in the regular season. But at least Tampa Bay and Baltimore offer some precedent for middling offenses doing just enough to win it all. 

Washington state AG's decision would allow an incremental abrogation of pot legalization law

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson wants to be re-elected, to that or any other office. He knows that despite the state’s reputation for being “progressive,” it actually has an active regressive element, so he must keep that in mind when he makes decisions on “controversial” topics like the new marijuana legalization law. It seems that Ferguson has caved-in to the demands of the small, but loud  “law and order” conservative local government types either motivated by personal philosophy or unduly influenced by equally small but loud constituencies. He has somehow found an obscure “loop hole” in the marijuana law that allows vaguely-defined “communities”—not just your typical walled-off affair, but individual neighborhoods—to deny people their lawful right to enjoy a toke.

No doubt that there is a large element of fear and paranoia involved here. Some people likely have visions of stoned zombies walking the streets, pot warlords setting-up shop next door, or fear its effect on their kids’ brains. Or maybe they just oppose anything that has a “leftist” taint to it.  Police—local and state—no doubt are flummoxed by the idea that they can’t fill their arrest quotas harassing pot smokers. It is all a reaction against and fear of change; the truth of the matter is that while there might be an uptick is usage and certainly more openly, there will likely be little noticeable change in the way society functions. Back in the so-called “good old days” when opium and its byproducts were actually “legal,” society didn’t fall apart; why should it do so with such an innocuous substance like marijuana, which is less harmful than alcohol?

I’m not saying that smoking pot is a “good” thing, but “banning” it in one neighborhood when it is legal across the street is absurd; in fact the whole “war on drugs” has been nothing but a money grab for law enforcement and the prison industry, so they have cynical reasons to keep the “war” going. But it has been an abject failure from the start, costing far more lives than it saves. Fear mongering in regard to such a low-level substance like marijuana—when it could wean people off the “hard” stuff—could lead to the complete abrogation of the legalization law community-by-community, skirting privacy issues just as federal anti-drug laws do (remember that it required a constitutional amendment to legally ban alcohol use). Ferguson’s technically illegal actions should be taken to a higher court and over-turned before the law is totally invalidated.