I didn't realize how bad the NFL's concussion problem was
until many of its players developed kneeling sickness during
the singing of the national anthem. . The
kneelers claim they are protesting racism, but kneeling is usually
done as a form of submission, not a form of protest. In
the NFL, a player who fields a kickoff in the end zone will kneel to
show he doesn't plan to run with the ball. Late in the
game the quarterback on the team that is leading will "take a
knee" to run out the clock. Kneeling is what
a slave may do to show obedience to an owner.
The national anthem, "Star Spangled Banner", recalls the bravery of
the men in one of our nation's most important battles.
In the War of 1812 the men of Ft. McHenry
held off the British navy in spite of a fierce naval
bombardment. At dawn the flag was still waving. By
protesting during the national anthem, the kneelers show
contempt for those Americans who died in that battle including an
escaped slave who had enlisted as a private in the U.S. army using
the name William
Williams. The kneelers also show contempt
for 360,000 U.S. army soldiers who died fighting in the Civil War
which ended slavery. 40,000 of those soldiers were
black.
The kneelers alienate many of those fans who have friends and
relatives serving in distant combat zones. Many fans
have served in combat in the current conflict or lost friends or
relatives in the 9/11 attack.
The kneelers have created a rift between players and fans that is
costing the league revenue. I wonder if that was Colin
Kaepenick's goal when he persuaded current players to become
involved in this silly protest. Did he encourage the
protests to get even with NFL teams for not signing him as a
free agent?
If NFL players really want to do something about racism they should
donate money to civil rights organizations, including
political action committees that support civil rights oriented
candidates Kneeling on the sidelines and whining like children
in a store who want toys is unlikely to accomplish anything.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Monday, September 25, 2017
Those Who Benefit from Economic Injustice Shouldn't Complain
Those athletes who complain about the existence of injustice
ignore the fact that they are part of the class whose members may
benefit from whatever injustices are perceived to exist. What
is considered an injustice varies from one person to
another.
The use of local taxes to subsidize sports facilities can be considered an injustice. Some of the athletes using the facilities pay more in income taxes than some of the local taxpayers make in a year. The money teams save by not having to pay to construct facilities is available for player salaries.
If professional athletes are really concerned about injustice they should do something directly instead of whining about it like children For example, they might use part of their income to create jobs in high unemployment areas.
Criticism of President Donald Trump's comments is unjustified. As the elected leader of the American he can speak for those who agree with him. Normally we can expect that some will agree with him and some will disagree.
The use of local taxes to subsidize sports facilities can be considered an injustice. Some of the athletes using the facilities pay more in income taxes than some of the local taxpayers make in a year. The money teams save by not having to pay to construct facilities is available for player salaries.
If professional athletes are really concerned about injustice they should do something directly instead of whining about it like children For example, they might use part of their income to create jobs in high unemployment areas.
Criticism of President Donald Trump's comments is unjustified. As the elected leader of the American he can speak for those who agree with him. Normally we can expect that some will agree with him and some will disagree.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Donald Trump Should Tell Gestapo-like Mueller: "You're fired!"
Is Robert S. Mueller III Mr. Mueller the special counsel or
Herr Mueller the head of the American Gestapo? His
treatment of Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul J.
Manafort implies he should be called "Herr Mueller".
Mueller conducted a search of Manafort's residence by breaking into the residence while Manafort and his wife were in bed. Such a tactic might have been accepted in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union It should not be accepted in 21st Century America.
The secret police in police states use this tactic to terrorize their victims into confessing they are "witches". Police in the United States might need to use this tactic with violent criminals.
There can be no justification for using it in political controversies particularly when there is no evidence of a crime.
Four of the Russian computer hackers [including a colonel and a major] who supposedly interfered in the election were on the C.I.A.'s payroll. Thus, if anything illegal happened it was President Barack Obama and his C.I.A. who were involved rather than persons associated with Donald Trump. Barack Obama was paying them. Not Donald Trump. They reported to the C.I.A. Not Donald Trump
Mueller conducted a search of Manafort's residence by breaking into the residence while Manafort and his wife were in bed. Such a tactic might have been accepted in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union It should not be accepted in 21st Century America.
The secret police in police states use this tactic to terrorize their victims into confessing they are "witches". Police in the United States might need to use this tactic with violent criminals.
There can be no justification for using it in political controversies particularly when there is no evidence of a crime.
Four of the Russian computer hackers [including a colonel and a major] who supposedly interfered in the election were on the C.I.A.'s payroll. Thus, if anything illegal happened it was President Barack Obama and his C.I.A. who were involved rather than persons associated with Donald Trump. Barack Obama was paying them. Not Donald Trump. They reported to the C.I.A. Not Donald Trump
Friday, September 8, 2017
Did Pres. Obama and CIA Help Donald Trump Win?
News stories about purported Russian hacking in the presidential
election continue to omit a very important fact. The Russian
government has arrested four of the hackers, including Col.Sergei
Mikhailov, and charged them with working for the CIA.
Thus if Russians did any election hacking it was with the knowledge and consent of the CIA and President Barack Obama. The knowledge received would have allowed the Obama administration to prevent any action that could have affected the outcome of the election. If the president knew terrorists threatened to attack, he would assign federal agents to protect those who might be attacked. Wouldn't a president who thought foreign government hackers threatened an organization assign government computer experts to protect against the attack?
If the hackers tried to help Donald Trump win, it was because someone in the Obama administration wanted Trump to win. It seems unlikely the CIA would have tried to help Trump win without Obama's approval. Incidentally with an FSB colonel on the CIA's payroll it would have been easy to have Russians meet with Trump's associates where the meetings would be noticed. [The FSB is the successor to the KGB.]
Why would Barack Obama want Donald Trump to win the election? Perhaps Obama thought if Trump won, it might be possible to convince Congress to change the Constitution to allow Obama to seek a third term in 2020, particularly if Congress thought Trump was involved with the Russians. That strategy wouldn't have been possible if Hillary Clinton had won.
I doubt the claim that Russian hackers did anything that affected the outcome of the election. even if they tried to do so. However, if they did then any federal investigation should ask what did the CIA and President Barack Obama know, when did they know it and what did they do with the knowledge? If CIA officials didn't tell Obama about the Russians, why didn't they?
Thus if Russians did any election hacking it was with the knowledge and consent of the CIA and President Barack Obama. The knowledge received would have allowed the Obama administration to prevent any action that could have affected the outcome of the election. If the president knew terrorists threatened to attack, he would assign federal agents to protect those who might be attacked. Wouldn't a president who thought foreign government hackers threatened an organization assign government computer experts to protect against the attack?
If the hackers tried to help Donald Trump win, it was because someone in the Obama administration wanted Trump to win. It seems unlikely the CIA would have tried to help Trump win without Obama's approval. Incidentally with an FSB colonel on the CIA's payroll it would have been easy to have Russians meet with Trump's associates where the meetings would be noticed. [The FSB is the successor to the KGB.]
Why would Barack Obama want Donald Trump to win the election? Perhaps Obama thought if Trump won, it might be possible to convince Congress to change the Constitution to allow Obama to seek a third term in 2020, particularly if Congress thought Trump was involved with the Russians. That strategy wouldn't have been possible if Hillary Clinton had won.
I doubt the claim that Russian hackers did anything that affected the outcome of the election. even if they tried to do so. However, if they did then any federal investigation should ask what did the CIA and President Barack Obama know, when did they know it and what did they do with the knowledge? If CIA officials didn't tell Obama about the Russians, why didn't they?
Monday, September 4, 2017
Wanton Destruction of Historic Art
The world was appalled when fanatical members of the Taliban blew up
ancient Buddhist statues carved into a mountain in
Afghanistan. They destroyed the priceless artifacts as part of
an effort to eliminate items they didn't considered
politically correct. More recently ISIS members
have been doing the same thing in Iraq. They have even
been destroying historical artifacts other Muslims consider
acceptable.
Unfortunately, this vandalism oriented mental condition has begun infecting people in the South. The southern vandals have begun destroying Civil War related art such as statues remembering the men who led the Southern states into the disaster known as the Civil War and in the process caused the end of slavery.
As the great grandson of a Yankee soldier I've never really understood why southern whites would want to honor such men. I presume they did not put up the statues because they knew the statues would be pigeon roosts.
It would have made more sense if the former slaves had erected the statues to thank the men who provoked northerners into ending slavery. In 1860 there was little prospect for ending slavery. Most northerners opposed slavery in their states because they hated the people held as slaves. The decision by southern states to leave the union and fight a lengthy war so angered northerners that they decided to get even with southerners by freeing southern slaves and granting the freed slaves rights that were denied in some northern states. Blacks couldn't even live in Illinois. The descendants of slaves shouldn't be destroying Civil War monuments. They should be protecting the monuments to those who inadvertently brought a end to slavery. Southerners should include signs with the monuments thanking the men who caused the north to end slavery.
The Muslim extremists who have been destroying historic art have been doing so to cover up the fact people in the region once had different religious beliefs. Are the people who are leading the effort to destroy historic art in the south trying to cover up the fact that southern slavery once caused a major war? The presence of Civil War monuments can lead to questions about what caused the war. Without the monuments, whites can avoid dealing with questions about the southern past.
Unfortunately, this vandalism oriented mental condition has begun infecting people in the South. The southern vandals have begun destroying Civil War related art such as statues remembering the men who led the Southern states into the disaster known as the Civil War and in the process caused the end of slavery.
As the great grandson of a Yankee soldier I've never really understood why southern whites would want to honor such men. I presume they did not put up the statues because they knew the statues would be pigeon roosts.
It would have made more sense if the former slaves had erected the statues to thank the men who provoked northerners into ending slavery. In 1860 there was little prospect for ending slavery. Most northerners opposed slavery in their states because they hated the people held as slaves. The decision by southern states to leave the union and fight a lengthy war so angered northerners that they decided to get even with southerners by freeing southern slaves and granting the freed slaves rights that were denied in some northern states. Blacks couldn't even live in Illinois. The descendants of slaves shouldn't be destroying Civil War monuments. They should be protecting the monuments to those who inadvertently brought a end to slavery. Southerners should include signs with the monuments thanking the men who caused the north to end slavery.
The Muslim extremists who have been destroying historic art have been doing so to cover up the fact people in the region once had different religious beliefs. Are the people who are leading the effort to destroy historic art in the south trying to cover up the fact that southern slavery once caused a major war? The presence of Civil War monuments can lead to questions about what caused the war. Without the monuments, whites can avoid dealing with questions about the southern past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)