Is Seattle's 13th Man Initiative the Odd Man Out?

Defending Super Bowl Champions Seattle Seahawks have been successful on an off the field.  Civic pride for the Seahawks in Seattle is legendary, as their fans are considered the 12th man, giving the team a tremendous home field advantage.  Seahawk fans are so loud that their boisterous cheers caused two measurable earthquakes.

However, in the run up to the NFC Championship game against the Green Bay Packers, Socialist Alternative Councilwoman Kshama Sawant railed against the restrictiveness nature of Seattle Seahawk season tickets preventing many unprivileged WeHawk fans from seeing the game in person.

Sawant organized some street theater to illustrate the divide between the Seahawk fans have and have nots with a "13th Man Initiative". The socialist rally on Capitol Hill gathered hundreds of blue and lime clad workers chanting "No justice, no beast".  During their march to Pioneer Square, protesters carried signs reading "We are the 13" and "12th Man, aka Bequeathed Mode".  

Sawant's solution to the Seahawk ticket situation is to share seats among the metro Seattle residents.  According to Sawart: 

“With 3 million people in the Seattle metro area, that’s about 44 people per seat. After this weekend, the Hawks will have played 10 home games, or 41 quarters (remember the overtime versus the Broncos). If you subtract infants and Sounders fans, that comes out almost perfectly to one quarter per person."

Right. And Sawant is supposedly an economics professor.  Perhaps it should be noted that Washington state has legalized the recreation use of marijuana.  College campuses may have been a bit ahead of the pot legalization initiative.

Some claim that this 13th man initiative is just satire.  Where you stand is where you sit.  Street theater might be a lark for an Occupy rally.  As an elected official, such satire is unseemly, especially without denoting that it was allegedly illustrating a point.  If so, what was the point?

The 13th Man ticket sharing idea is about as idiotic as the living wage initiative which Sawant championed to raise the Emerald City's minimum wage to $15 an hour.  Seattle's City Council unanimously passed the $15 minimum wage and chose to fully implement it in April 2015, even though liberally minded restaurant owners warn that the drastic wage increase will decrease labor and threaten small business survival in the city.

Sawant gained notoriety for her involvement in the Occupy  Wall Street movement.  It seems like the "13th Man Initiative" is ersatz opposition which injects  class strife and partisan politics into sports successes.  The NFL has been plagued with politically correct controversies which are peripheral to football, like political pressure and  Obama Administrations machinations to force the Washington Redskins to change their name and football players engaging in the "Hands up don't shoot" meme ala Ferguson.

It is a pity that rabble rousers and progressive political animals continue to use sports as a platform for forcing their politics into sports rather than allowing the teams to build unity among the community. Alas the 13th man initiative is the odd men as the are people who can not root  for their team without playing victim (for not having tickets), "raising consciences" and politically dividing the Seahawks fan base.

The Simpsons: Animated Ambassadors of Free Speech

  

 Five days after the horrific massacre in Paris at the offices of Charlie Hebdo by radical Islamist terrorists, the Simpsons showed a short tribute to support free speech.

Maggie Simpsons flag waving was a homage to the iconic painting Liberty Leading the People (1830) by Eugene Delacroix along with the social media meme #JeSuisCharlie (I am Charlie). Or perhaps the pose was inspired by Cosette in Les Miserables.

Even after 26 seasons on American television with nearly 550 episodes, the Simpsons shows that it has the pulse on what animates the public.

This is not the first time in which the Simpsons has sought to make serious points with ancillary scenes.  In 2010, the Simpsons kept it real for their twentieth anniversary season with a title card sequence inspired by the graffiti artist Banksy.

The typical close to the Title Sequence of the Family watching the boob tube revealed itself to be a plasma television image in a grim Asian sweat shop churning out images of the Simpsons.  As the camera focused on the toxic slim dripping below, it shows lower levels of commercial exploitation.  The surreal sweat shop infused humor in its dark comedy, as a pooped panda hauled a cart of plush dolls, which were stuffed of ground kittens.  A decapitated dolphin sealed boxes of this Simpsons merchandise. 

The picture of the Simpsons watching the boob tube reveals itself to be a plasma television image in a grim Asian sweat shop that is laboriously drawing images of the Simpsons. As the POV focuses on the toxic slime dripping below, there are subterranean layers of exploitation. Busy sweatshop seamstresses sew Simpsons licensed garments, worker stuff Bart plush figurines and a DVD duplication production line.

 Banksy’s contribution seemed reminiscent of Salvador Dali on a dark day. But the sequence may have been meant as more than a dark fantasy.  Show runner Al Jean may have been protesting outsourcing animation offshore overseas by illustrating intolerable production conditions which feeds the public's hunger for inexpensive entertainment.

The Simpson's standing in solidarity with the Paris Shooting protesters demonstrated that they are animated ambassadors of free speech.  While the Les Miserables motif was apropos, an even more poignant pairing would have been to mash up the Simpsons with operatic Les Mis anthem "One Day More".

Duke Ditches Plan to Sound the Friday Call to Prayer Across Campus

Duke University announced that the Muslim Call to Prayer would be broadcast every Friday at 1PM. This was being done to promote religious pluralism for the 700 Muslim students on campus. Imam Adel Zeeb, the Muslim chaplain at Duke explained: "The adhan is the call to prayer that brings Muslims back to their purpose in life, which is to worship God and serves as a reminder to serve our brothers and sisters in humanity." 

 Off-campus, however, reaction to this news was swift and condemnatory.  The Reverend Franklin Graham took to social media to express disapproval of Duke's decision.  Although Muslim students had been meeting in the basement of the Chapel for years, Rev. Franklin felt that amplifying the adan was poisonous pluralism.  Franklin posited that: "You're taking that bell tower, and you're turning it into a Muslim minaret. I think it's a slap at the Christian faith."

The day after the Duke Call To Prayer idea was shared with the world, Duke University backtracked on the decision. Michael Schoenfeld, Duke's Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations, stated:

“Duke remains committed to fostering an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming campus for all of its students. However, it was clear that what was conceived as an effort to unify was not having the intended effect.”

It may not have just been Franklin Graham's moral suasion which won the battle for the bell tower. Franklin Graham's initial Facebook post suggested that alumni and donors ought to withhold support until the decision was reversed.

After University officials opted  against amplifying the adan, Rev. Graham posted his support for Duke's decision.

Omid Safi, the director of Duke's Islamic Studies program, disputed the notion that the Call to Prayer was an effort to supplant Christianity on campus.

"Every day from that same Duke chapel, church bells ring, and twice on Sunday. The cross is on the emblem of Duke University. The entire quad, and the entire campus of Duke University is laid out as a cross. And the Christian chapel is the very symbol of Duke University. So the kind of fanatical proclamation that Christianity is being erased from Duke’s campus is frankly a poor indication of the intelligence of that argument."

While it is true that Duke University was founded by Methodists and Quakers, the Blue Devil's campus has long been operating as a secular school.  It is facile reasoning that the church bell rings twice on Sunday at Duke Chapel as it ignores the symbolic importance of the adan.  Duke's Chapel is at the highest ridge on campus and one of the highest points in  Durham County.  Having the Collegiate Gothic Chapel broadcast the prayer Friday afternoon would be interpreted by radicalized religious as establishing the dominance of Islam over those academic ivory towers.

It is reminiscent of the controversy over the 2010 proposed "Cordoba House" at Park 51 near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.  There was a great effort by Developer Sharif El-Gamal to plant a mosque in the area, even though there was not a large enough community to support it.  Three years after the mosque opened, El-Gamal announced that he aspired to build a three story museum dedicated to Islam near Ground Zero.  

What explains this obsession with establishing iconic Islamic edifices near prominent real estate?  As Robert Spencer speculated about the current Park 51 plans:

“The structure as you describe it would be as grotesque as a three-story museum dedicated to exploring the faith of Shintoism and emperor-worship, and its arts and culture, with a sanctuary for prayer services and community programs, at Pearl Harbor." 

We in the west seem like we are metaphobes who are incapable of appreciating the significance of symbolism or the political impact of Islam.  They fail to consider that Islam is a holistic system which incorporates law, governance as well as spirituality.  

Radicalized Islamists seek to impose sharia law through cultural jihad.  France is grappling with a suspicion the political correctness coupled with Islamic accommodations is creating an Islamicized France. While the majority of North American Muslims seem content to live in a secular society with a pluralistic polity, it is easy to understand why some are chary about allowing accommodations which can be seen as a primus entre pares situation.

Guardians of Free Speech or Vanguards of the Dhimmitude?

The Mainstream Media loves to trumpet the trope that they are Guardians of First Amendment rights for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.  However, the timorous self-censoring displayed by major media outlets in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terror attack in Paris exposes this ideal as an intellectual chimera.

CNN Senior Editorial Director Richard Griffin issued an internal memo which dictated that the media outlet not show images that could be considered offensive to Muslims.  The Politico released Griffin's email:

Although we are not at this time showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet considered offensive by many Muslims, platforms are encouraged to verbally describe the cartoons in detail. This is key to understanding the nature of the attack on the magazine and the tension between free expression and respect for religion. 

Video or stills of street protests showing Parisians holding up copies of the offensive cartoons, if shot wide, are also OK. Avoid close-ups of the cartoons that make them clearly legible.

It's also OK to show most of the protest cartoons making the rounds online, though care should be taken to avoid examples that include within them detailed depictions of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

NBC News mimicked this tact by guiding their outlets to neither show headlines nor cartoons which could be deemed insensitive or offensive.

In the print medium, the Associated Press applied an internal policy of "not moving deliberately provocative images" so it removed Charlie Hebdo images from their database. However, it only took the Associate Press 27 years and an embarrassing exposure by the Washington Examiner for the same standard to be applied to Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" (1987).   Was this because a crucifix dipped in urine and displayed as art is not deliberately provocative? Do elitist editors think that anti-Christian imagery is not provocative but that they dare not offend adherents to the Prophet Mohammad?  Or does publishing some provocative pictures might put their lives on the line by radical terrorists?

The New York Daily News covered the source material which provoked these three Islamic terrorists to assassinate twelve French citizens by pixillating the Prophet Mohammad's image.

Stephane Charbonnier posing with satirical cover pixillated in NY Daily News {photo FRED DUFOUR/AFP}

As Mark Steyn remarked, the New York Daily News put Mohammad in the witness protection program with their editorial sensitivity, yet the editors did not obscure the hook nose caricature of a Jew which shared the frame. So much for sensitivity or avoiding provocative pictures.

It is galling that the media outlets are proud as a peacock as being protectors of Free Speech while acting in a duplicitous and cowardly manner.  While these Charlie Hedbo pictures are provocative, they are no longer a polemic point of view but now are a news story. None the less, the major media acts in a Milquetoast manner towards the prophet Mohammad.  No wonder why they can derisively known as the "Lamestream Media".

In 2013, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) sought to limit who can be a journalist. Feinstein argued that a federal shield law should only apply to "real reporters".  But what if these paid journalists refuse to report the news?

These pusillanimous journalists should review what dhimmitude means.  This second class citizenship of non-Muslims acknowledges the dominance of sharia law and does not allow anything to offend those within the Dar-Islam.   Self-censorship so as not to give offense to Muslims is a major step in accepting those social shackles.

In Paris, many protesters to the Charlie Hebdo atrocity carried pencils to symbolize that the pencil is mightier than the sword and that they are not afraid. The cartoon of the Twin Tower of Pencils links terrorism from America's 9/11 attack to the Parisian terrorism.  Sadly this cartoon has another connection.  American news networks stopped showing the terrorist planes hitting the World Trade Center except briefly during the 9/11 anniversary to supposedly not to show provocative images. Of course, such horrific footage might remind people about the consequences of unchecked terrorism.  

Contemplating Free Speech and the Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack

Stephane Charbonnier, Chief Editor of the French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo", was one of France's leading cartoonists who created under the pen name "Charb".   Charbonnier was also an outspoken advocate for free speech who fiercely defended his right to push material that others, particularly Muslims, deemed offensive. 

In 2011, Charbonnier invited the Prophet Muhammad to be a guest editor to Charlie Hebdo. This prompted a firebombing which destroyed Charlie Hebdo's offices and put Charb on an Al-Qaeda hit list. 

Stephane Charbonnier defiantly posing after Charlie Hebdo firebombing,  Nov. 2011

The three Islamic terrorists who brutally attacked Charlie Hebdo's offices on January 7, 2015 reportedly asked for Charb by name as they slaughtered twelve people. 

Some Muslim spokesmen justify a rabid response like the terrorist attack as Charlie Hebdo published pieces which were offensive to the Prophet Muhammad.  Bill Donohue,  President of the (American) Catholic League, condemned the killings but stated that "Muslims have a right to be angry" over Charlie Hebdo's provocative publications.

Many media outlets are quick to point out that Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical publication, which is true but is misleading.  This Charlie Hebdo massacre was an attack on Free Speech.  It was cultural jihad which is imposing tenants of sharia law (among which is to not to offend Muslims) on Western society.  This movement is being aided and accelerated by Political Correctness, which seeks to not  provoke favored minorities but is happy to taunt traditional mores.

The fact that many media sources were self-censoring about showing "provocative" Charlie Hebdo covers, but had no problems publicizing Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" (1987) or Chris Orfill's depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung (1996) shows the double standard from the supposed guardians of the First Amendment.

Such spurious self-censoring of provocative content towards a violent minority which seeks to apply sharia law is an early stage of dhimmitude. 

The Story of NORAD and the Santa Tracker

A family tradition in my youth was worshiping at a Vigil Mass on Christmas Eve and driving around nearby neighborhoods with wonderful holiday light displays while listening for NORAD reports on Santa Claus' whereabouts.  As a jaded grown-up, I presumed that these reports were performance shtick on a long media night.  Little did I know that the reports were real and that a typo and the good cheer of an Air Force colonel brought joy to the world.

During the 1950s, America was engaged in a Cold War with the Soviet Union which threatened to become hot at any moment. School children of the era was raised to be prepared to duck and cover at any given moment due to a sneak nuclear attack from the enemy.  Soon, Sputnik's successful launch made watching the skies even more important.

In Colorado Springs,Colorado at  the Continental Air Defense Command    a.k.a. CONAD (the predecessor to the North American Aerospace Defense Command or NORAD), there was a red telephone on the commander's desk which had a secret telephone number known only by a four star General at the Pentagon, which would have been used to convey news of an enemy aerial attack.

However, in December 1955, the CONAD commander's red phone rang and the voice on the other line was a little voice which asked "Is this really Santa Claus".  At first the Colonel was upset at what he thought was a crank call, but when he heard crying, the straight laced Colonel changed his demeanor.  The CONAD commander ho-ho-hoed and asked the caller if he had been a good boy.  Afterwards, the Santa Colonel asked to speak to his mother.

It seems that a copy for a Sears Roebuck newspaper ad had a misprint, so "Santa's private phone" number not connecting to Toyland but was actually the secret military number for what is now NORAD. Colonel Shoup delegated a few airman to act like Santa Claus for kiddie red phone callers.

Col. Shoup's daughter,  Terri Van Keuren, recounted: "It got to be a big joke at the command center. You know, 'The old man's really flipped his lid this time. We're answering Santa calls".  So much so, on Christmas Eve 1955, airmen modified the big glass board used to track air flights and included a drawing of a sleigh and eight reindeer coming from the North Pole.

When Col. Shoup saw this modified big board, he exclaimed: "What is this?".  His subordinates apologized and insisted that they were just making a a joke.  Shoup pondered the predicament for a bit and then telephoned a radio station with the message: "This is the Commander at the Combat Air Center, and we have an unidentified flying object.  Why, it looks like a sled.".  Hence the tradition began.

Now kids can call 1-877 HI-NORAD (1-877-446-6723) to talk to NORAD staff about Santa's exact location.  The internet tracker for the big man in red began in 1998 with the SantaCam.  At noradsanta.org, people can view the SantaCams from around the world as well as understand NORAD's main mission. Last year, "Operation Feel" had F-18 fighter jets escorting Santa and his sleigh, which led CNN reporters questioning if the US military had taken possession of Santa Claus.  Of course, these reporters failed to report on "Operation Noble Eagle" with the Royal Canadian Air Force escorts over their territory or how these videos infuse some of NORAD's primary mission to girls and boys along with the spirit of the season.






Colonel Shoup died in 2009.  But even in his 90s, Shoup proudly carried a briefcase which he treated like had top secret information that contained letters thanking him for having a good sense of humor in allowing NORAD to track Santa.



h/t: NPR
      NORADSanta.org 

Scuttlebutt on the Sony Hack Cyberwar Skirmish

Former Speaker of the House  Newt Gingrich opined that America lost its first cyberwar associated by the Sony Hack, which demanded that the feature film "The Interview" be withdrawn from distribution. 

So America's freedom of speech is subject to the whims of a tinpot dictator (albeit with a few nuclear bombs) from the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea. 

A corporation like Sony Pictures may harbor concerns about liability associated with the publicized threats made by the anonymous hackers calling themselves "Guardians of Peace"  against movie-goers who attended the now cancelled Christmas day opening.  

Voices from both side of the political spectrum, from former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) to Alan Dershowitiz.  But Sony Pictures pulled "The Interview" from all prospective platforms.  There may also have been pecuniary motive for the move.  If the picture is never officially released, Sony Pictures could recover from insurance money, otherwise they would absorb the $41 million production costs.  

This does not explain Hollywood's cowardice towards pissing off Pyongyang. After Sony Pictures cancelled "The Interview",  the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin, Texas announced that it would show "Team America: World Police"(2004),  Alas those puckish plans were foiled by Paramount Pictures which refused to offer the Trey Parker and Matt Stone's film which satirizes Kim Jon Un's father Kim Jong-il due to "circumstances beyond their control." Those who want to revel to "I'm So Ronery" can still see it on Netflix or through Amazon Instant Video. 

If that is not sufficient evidence that Hollywood waved the white flag for the Hermit Kingdom, New Regency pulled the plug on the Steve Carell project "Pyongyang", which was slated to start up in March, 2015. And George Clooney spent a week asking a large number of Hollywood executives to sign a petition protesting the Norks blackmailing Hollywood through the Sony Hack.  Tellingly, no one had enough courage to sign the petition.  During World War II, studio produced propaganda pieces like Bugs Bunny cartoons sending up der Fuehrer. Now, such Tinseltown execs like the fortitude to sign a meager memo protesting business blackmail and standing up for freedom of speech. 

During his end of the year press conference, President Barack Obama opined that Sony Picture executives made a bad choice in pulling the film and that they should have talked with him.  It seems that running a rough cut in front of State Department officials was insufficient. Our Dear Leader's messianic charisma, Obama's renown negotiating skills and his steadfastness in setting red lines (and then ignoring them) surely would have made a difference.  But President Obama promises to study the problem and offer a measured US response to North Korean Cyberwar provocation. After all, Mr. Obama will be 6,000 miles closer on golf courses in Hawaii to offer leadership.

The United States does have limited options in dealing with North Korea.  There are virtually no economic sanctions left to use.  Moreover, Pyongyang is insulated by charity from the Peoples' Republic of China so the NORKS can continue create trouble with the US.  We can not forget that the Hermit Kingdom does have nuclear capabilities.  Then there is the small matter of the DRK having 10,000 missiles aimed at our treaty ally South Korea, where we incidentally have 37,000 soldiers stationed.  

There may be black operations by the US which should not become public, as well as behind the scenes diplomatic de marches with DRK allies in Beijing.  But the best public responses that I have heard so far involve Hollywood using the Oscars ceremony on Washington's Birthday to use "The Interview" actors James FRANCO, Seth Rogen and Randall Park to come out in character and joke around.  While at the same time, the Pentagon sponsors a joint training operation with the South Korean, Japanese and American military forces in the Sea of Japan.

But considering the cravenness recently displayed by Hollywood, it is more likely that the Oscars would be hosted by the actual Kim Jong Un with a special appearance by Sony Picture's Racial Inclusion Czar, the Reverend Al Sharpton.

h/t: Steve Sack

Eric Holder's Odd Interpretation of Civil Rights Law

In a memorandum, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed that the Department of Justice will consider Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as including trangedered individuals as well as those with gender identity issues (e.g. transvestites).   Holder rationalized that the federal government's approach to the issue had evolved over time.  So even though such classes were not contemplated by Congress when the law was enacted, they ought to be covered despite the plain text reading and 50 years of DOJ precedent. Or it should be affirmatively decided by the highest court in the land.

Holder invoked the logic of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs. (1978), a Supreme Court decision which purports that statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils".  A complication with relying upon this language as it focuses on acts which applies to discrimination on women and men. Holder's ukase is that it establishes new classes of Civil Rights coverage, namely for cross-dressers as well as transgendered people.  Such unilateral Administrative action was anticipated by Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James.



However, Congress did not pass the Employers Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) because of concerns in the House whether the bills prohibitions on discrimination on sexual orientation would also include gender identity. ENDA did not pass Congress, but no matter for the Obama Administration to fashion its own law.

Although this holding supposedly only extends to the Federal Government, the limited scope of the Federal Gay Marriage applicability in U.S. v. Windsor (2013) was not respected.  In addition, consider how Attorney General Holder's logic of juridical evolution could be liberally applied.

Does America still have the rule of law or the rule of men?  This is a hard question to give a straight answer.

h/t: Michael Ramirez 

Obama White House Channels JFK?

In response to the uproar over President Obama normalizing relations with Cuba without gaining any real concessions from the Castros, White House spokesman Josh Earnest invoked the spirit of JFK.  Earnest intimated that President Kennedy would change his policy of isolation after seeing that it did not bring about the desired change.

Really?  Is this wisdom akin to Mr. Obama's assertion that he heard the 2/3rds of Americans who did not participate in the Midterms shellacking of President Obama's Democrats in the House and Senate?  Of course, such perspecaciousness is unsurprising for a Commander-in-Chief who can see fallen heroes in a Memorial Day audience, especially Navy Corpsemen (sic). 

While the left and the right may seek to claim the mantle of Camelot after 50 years, it certainly seems like a stretch to imply that a Cold Warrior such as JKF, would give up for nothing.  After all, President Kennedy gave the final  approved for the Bay of Pigs invasion (before he withdrew air cover during the operation thus dooming the mission).  And Kennedy stood up to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Furthermore, JFK  plotted several assassination attempts against Fidel.  It seems with his spurious assertion that Josh Earnest continues to be the ironic Obama spokesman.

But pro arguendo, should American foreign policy toward economically isolating Havana change after 50 years?  Well, 190 other nations have not been observing the boycott and what sort of political and economic liberalization has occurred in the island prison state?   Hmm, foreign tourists enjoy white  sandy beaches in Cuba but are cordoned off from the grime the common people live with through tourist apartheid separated by barbed wire fences.  Many regular Cubans seek to work as "sex workers" since prostitutes can garner some hard currency from tips.  Western companies can invest, but they must partner with the kleptocratic communist Cuban government  which keeps 92% of the joint venture worker's salary.

Then consider President Obama's diplomatic skills.  Once again, the 44th President is coddling a dictatorial government who is actively opposed to our interests, without winning anything in return. Wonder what our Dear Leader will offer Kim Jong Un in the wake of Sony Hack Attack in appeasement?

h/t: A.F. Branco