There's a lot going on and only I, out of the six billion people on this planet, have something valuable to say about it. I’m sure you will agree after reading the following:
Stand, kneel, play patty cake – what do I care? Just don’t bore me.
The whole NFL anthem thing is almost played out – and pretty much where I wanted to be in the first place. That’s good, because for once the NFL, whose games I love to watch, but whose organization I’ve come to have little respect for, got it right for a change. But, let's start at the beginning.
Kaepernick - So, Kaep was a decent quarterback in this league who had a lot of potential, but during his last two years the 49ers were a poor team and he showed no improvement. Statistically, he’s right about the same place as he had been, but the teams not winning and efforts to improve his game (including with mentoring from Hall of Famer Kurt Warner) seemed not to help at all. Though he comes from a middle class family into which he was adopted, he may have been radicalized a little by a new girlfriend (that's the narrative and what it seems like, but I really don’t know - maybe he was leaning that way already), and it also seems that he is feeling some kind of youthful identity stress. I don’t know that he is acting with any more or less political savvy than other people. He’s 30 now. I probably felt a lot like he did in my early 20s - not a commie, but definitely a lefty. I grew out of it.
I actually liked Kaepernick quite a bit for a while. Though I thought a lot of Alex Smith, who he replaced as starter (and who is a few years later having the year of his life), I wanted to see Kaep play. He seemed like he had a fun loving personality and was absolutely a great athlete, if not ever an elite QB. I remember one play, probably in 2013, which endeared him to me personally. He had just run the ball and was forced out of bounds. A defensive player on the other team was jawing at him coming off the sidelines back to the field. Kaep smiled at him sweetly and just pointed to the scoreboard. Maybe he has changed. Like with entertainers, we only see their public persona and not necessarily the real person. He was fined for something he said on the field, not sure what, fined for wearing headphones the league didn’t endorse (that’s a knock on them, not him, in my book) and had a fight with a teammate who used to date his new girlfriend. Nothing horrible, but, you don’t see Eli Manning or Russell Wilson doing those type of things either, right?
Anyway, for whatever reason, in 2016 he started sitting out the anthem. He didn’t make a big deal about it until asked why during an interview. Naturally, there was a reaction, but, though I have trouble with his statements that black people are oppressed (not that there isn't prejudice on both sides) or that cops are quicker to shoot them than other people, I could be wrong and they obviously have a long history of oppression against them and many people still feel they are today. On the other hand, even President Obama said it is a lot better now than ever.
Actually, I don’t need to agree or disagree with him at all, or even know why he is sitting. I don’t care. As far as I’m concerned he could sit or kneel, as he did in the last game of the season, for any reason or no reason at all. I’m sure I’ve written here on one occasion at least that in high school I often lay down on the radiator during home room while the pledge of allegiance was recited, mostly out of exhaustion, but partly because I was never comfortable with public displays of patriotism, and when younger would sometimes not stand for the anthem for both of those reasons. I tend to stand in public these days during the anthem, because it upsets people more than I care, and I'm a little less exhausted, but there have been times I haven’t stood if I was in a back row.
In any event, some other players emulated him, and some much better athletes than him, including some on the Seattle Sea Hawks. This year it took off, especially when our whiz kid from Queens opened his bi-i-i-g-g mouth and said that players should be fired or benched – whatever. Then, the protest became something else. Whole teams linked arms in some kind of show of unity/protest and there were some black power salutes.
Now there was even more push back. Some people took Trump’s side, although I think he was idiotic about it, perhaps just trying to rally his base. I personally knew people who said they refused to watch the games while players were protesting. As many people pointed out, people are buying hot dogs and doing whatever they want during the anthem. Why can’t players do the same? What could be a more peaceful display of someone’s opinion than merely sitting or taking a knee? Some people seem to think is more respectful to the armed forces (I have no idea why they are part of the discussion – are they why we have the anthem? If so, I sure didn’t know that).
The NFL definitely has its eye on the bottom line. It is the reason for most of their stupid decisions although, they are a business and it is hard to blame them for trying. I don’t know if they are handling it right. There tv numbers – the reason for all that big money – that have been dwindling. But, that is also true of cable tv and sports in general, or so I read. The powers that be in the NFL, mostly my nemesis, Goodell, decided they’d better do something about the bad publicity from the protests. But, at the same time, being that the large majority of their players are black, they needed to tread lightly. Jerry Jones, the owner of the Cowboys, told his team whoever protests doesn’t play and it looked like the NFL was going to follow suite. But they didn’t. Goodell, in an NFL network interview, made it clear there were no policy changes and they wanted to talk to players about social justice. So, they had a meeting. It looked like they were even going to have Kaepernick, but then they didn’t.
What took place at the meeting, I can’t say. I guess there was “dialogue.” About what, I don’t know. It’s not like anyone is accusing the NFL, one the most minority dominated big businesses in the country, of oppressing blacks. I don’t know who they are accusing of oppressing them. Is it still about cops? The NFL, which is suddenly responsible for racial justice in this country, as if they were a branch of the civil rights division in Washington, agreed at the meeting that it would have a month set aside for social justice. No idea what that will entail, probably public service messages and some promotions. Maybe those representing the players wanted a way out too.
Now, it comes out one of the owners, Houston's Robert McNair, made a comment about the inmates running the prison, or was it asylum? So, he had to apologize for using an expression. Because e v e r y t h i n g is about color now, I guess his expression – one that had no racial meaning I knew of - became all about race too. Yawn. So, his team was affronted because that means . . . ummm . . . the owner’s a racist? The millionaire players are oppressed?
Me? Not enough to not watch the games, but I just wanted everyone to shut up about it. I don't think it does a thing for what the protests are intended to do (I still am not sure what) and I don't think it does a thing for the military or police to have it pushed to the side. It just makes me happier.
In the meantime, Kaepernick has sued the league on the grounds that there is a conspiracy not to hire him. That means owners had to get together to say – hey, lets not hire Kaep. That’s going to be hard to prove. I understand why they don’t want to hire him. For one thing, he started the whole thing. He had also worn socks with pigs wearing cop hats, which he claims he wore before he started sitting down and only represented rogue cops, and he wore a Che tee-shirt to some event or another. Che is a hero to rebels but to others a vicious murderer. Kaep now also sports an afro which we kind of associate with the ‘60s and “black power.” Some people may think that’s great, and maybe he’s a trend setter. But, others are going to be angry about it. Not because they are racist (although I’d bet some are), but because they hate racial divisiveness. Let’s face it – Che was and Kaep is divisive, and he’s not good enough to overcome it. There are other QBs not playing or second string who are better than he is -- but they aren’t divisive. There were and still are other guys protesting, but they were either really good, or great, or they were kneeling next to guys who were. If Kaep was good enough, he’d get hired too. Mediocre and divisive are a bad combination.
I’ve written before about what I think is going on in racial relations in America and I don’t want to go into it here. Why? Because I’m watching football. And there is nothing racist about football. Along with basketball, it is practically the antithesis of racism – unless you count reverse racism. The revolution is taking on almost ludicrous behaviors and opinions. Recently, the NAACP demanded that the national anthem be changed to remove a reference to slavery – not even an obnoxious reference, but one that simply acknowledges that there were slaves and indentured servants. I knew there was more than one stanza to the anthem, but I don’t know how many there are. I would expect that not one person in 10,000 knows that there is more than one, not one in a million knows how many and not one in ten million know the words. And what would it mean to change the words that are never sang or thought about by almost anyone in the country? Finding old books and burning them or just having some government official stating – we change these words and henceforth everyone pretend Francis Scott Key never wrote them. I don’t get it. It would be like Jews demanding that people stop mentioning the holocaust or Americans that people stop writing novels about 9/11. You can’t change history. These things happened. We are better off knowing and thinking about them.
Also, recently, an NBA player suggested we stop calling owners "owners." "Chairman" would be better. Why you ask? Not that we have slavery, but apparently for him, using the word "owner" is some kind of holdover from slavery we should get past. Thanks to Mark Cuban for pointing out that the ownership involved is not of people, but shares of stock or a team.
So, my preference – sit, stand, kneel, sing, don’t sing, I don’t care. It’s harmless, absolutely peaceful protest about something concerning race, but I’m no longer sure what. Maybe it just means for the protester - we are black and we still feel stigmatized or threatened or we are protesting for those who look more like us but don’t have million dollar salaries. It’s not that I don’t care about race relations or people’s feelings. I just don’t want to hear about it or see it while I’m trying to watch football. It would be like a football game breaking out in a super market while I'm trying to shop.
Weinstein, you knucklehead, you may be disgusting, you may be a criminal, but you may also have helped women get past a stigma of being sexually assaulted
It was exactly zero shock for people to read that there was an avalanche of women coming out of the shadows to accuse a film producer of sexual harassment. I’ve known since I’m a child that there was a casting couch and that many young actresses, maybe old ones too for all I knew, who felt they had to have sex with people in power to get good roles. Or put up with uncomfortable situations. And many times they were likely right.
Harvey Weinstein, is, undoubtedly, a pig. Yes, when this many women come out, I do believe them, at least most of them. He is probably, based on the accusations, a criminal, though he denies that part of it. It’s actually not fair that some of the commentary seems to focus on his looks. He’s not a good looking guy, but that shouldn’t be the issue.
What I’m glad to see mostly is that women who were before being quiet, because they felt they wouldn’t be believed, or that they’d be shamed, now feel they can speak up. But, if all it is, is a snowball related to Weinstein and a few other chosen people who were predatory, it is not enough.
Many, many years ago I heard something in summer camp that I still remember. I was somewhere between 8-10 and a camp counselor, probably in her young 20s - to me very grown up, was saying that she had to wear a blue dress for her wedding because she had been raped – she couldn’t wear the traditional white. I was outraged for her but thought she was crazy to think that way. Why should she be shamed or stigmatized because someone else did something horrible? Don’t ask me where I got this idea that intentions should matter a lot and that traditions that shamed, denigrated, stigmatized or denounced people over things that were not in their control and seemed to have no rational relationship between the fact and the reaction, were not good traditions, but I had it very young, still in my single digits. Maybe everyone does, but it never seemed like that to me. It seemed closer to the opposite. People seem to like those stigmas, sometimes even when they apply to themselves.
But, at the same time I felt outraged for her, I was also very impressed that she didn’t seem to be ashamed that she was raped and could speak about it. I was already aware that rape, like almost anything sexual or biological in those days (we didn't even discuss that women had menstrual cycles) was a hush-hush matter. And, again, maybe all or most young kids know that. I’m not sure where we learn it.
Somewhere along the road of life I started to say outloud that I thought that women would be better off if their names were not hidden in rape cases and that the should be very upfront about it if they were sexually abused. The idea of sexual harassment was only slowly developing. Definitely by my 20s. But, quickly I learned it wasn’t an appreciated position to take publicly. People immediately got mad – as usual when I said what I thought about anything emotionally charged – and often they changed what I was saying into something different and definitely offensive, and claimed I was demeaning women, that I couldn't know what rape was like, and I shouldn’t have anything to say about it. Usually, if I have an opinion that was different than most people, I’d know that at least some people agreed with me, sometimes many people, but that being less awkward and more social than I was, were uncomfortable saying it in public (e.g., there are a lot more atheists/agnostics than admitted it publicly). But, with this opinion, I seemed to be completely on my own. Honestly, it didn’t come up a lot, but that was my impression.
Jump ahead to 1991 and the William Kennedy Smith rape case. There’s a lot that can be said about that case – there have been books about it – but I just am focusing on the fact that Ms. Bowman, the alleged victim was publicly outed, rather than being hid and the crime being prosecuted against an anonymous person. Though I tended to believe Kennedy in the scenario described, having heard the testimony, I was glad to see it was being brought out of the shadows for the defendant's sake, but also for hers, even if she protested.*
*Just as an aside, though people associate his name with the rape case too, few people are aware that subsequent to the trial, he received his M.D. and went on to a storied career as a humanitarian dealing with land mines and innovative ways to help poor countries with medical issues. No, you idiots, I’m not saying if he was a rapist his career gives him absolution (I’m actually sorry to have to say this, but I too frequently get reminded how people argue), I’m just saying that he was not just the party boy he was portrayed to be. I’ve read that he was accused as late as 2004 of sexual assault, which he denied, pointing out that he was very susceptible to accusations (a good point whether he’s a rapist or not). I don’t know what’s true. I’m just noting that anyone would be proud to have his humanitarian record. Both could be true.
Still, I did not see much evidence that women were being taught not to be ashamed to be victims. I get the problem still. They did not want to be the subject of hostility from ogres, and there are plenty of them, have their sex lives dragged out in public, maybe have their careers and life affected, have people whisper when they came into a room, etc. Nor have that general horrible feeling of having someone else exercise their will over them (presuming they are telling the truth). And I’m not saying I would feel or act differently, because I am subject to the same cultural training as they are. I am saying that we should get past it, and that case was a small step.
But, now, maybe, things are changing a little bit. Obviously, as time goes by we see more women, and sometimes men, willing to come out and say that they were abused. There’s courage in numbers, clearly. Although it seems there is a lot going on, there’s no way to know if this outing stuff will trickle down to those who can’t get in the media spotlight because the accused aren’t famous. I don’t know if it will empower people at work or other places at all. We’ll see, I guess. And, I’m also not suggesting that some of the accusations are false. It is just as dangerous to suggest that women don’t lie about rape or assault as to take the man’s side by rote.
I will only touch upon one more point about it. We have a tendency in this country to throw the baby out with the bath water when we have cultural change. While it is important - incredibly important - that women not be sexually assaulted or harassed at work, and I welcome this Weinstein generated movement in general, we do not want to create a situation where the work place becomes a sexual bonfire of the vanities - where every social interraction between male and female workers is made non-sexual and castigated as evil. Because that is what we have been teaching our young people. Love and sexuality exists even at work. You can't cut it out of you by force or law. Many relationships, I don't know if still most, are created there. It is one of the few places you can get to know people well in a natural environment and we are way to hung up about sex in general. Mild flirtation, dating, even sex does not have to be evil or wrong in the work environment. Probably little of it is. Just today I read of a journalist at CNN saying that she gave a man permission to say her dress look pretty. Now, that's insane.
While he was running I said that if he won, he’d be a terrible president but it would be very entertaining. It is. Partly because he’s such a moron (of course, Tillerson said that, whatever his denials – I don’t know that for a fact, but I believe it – I call a lot of people a moron at some point; it’s a common character assessment for even minor mistakes and Trump makes major ones repeatedly) and partly because of the resistance, which I’ve written on here before, is in a state of hysteria* and keeps his presidency aflame too.
*I’ve been a little conscious of the usual partisan fear and hatred for the opposition since Nixon and very much so since Reagan – when I joined in, being then very liberal. The reaction to Bush II was a large uptick in animosity towards the opposition president, possibly because the election was so close; Obama possibly more so, because of the attempt and partial success in changing our government, but at least the same amount; but the white hot “hysteria” regarding Trump is a giant leap back to uglier times in American history. Part of that is Trump’s fault, as he was the most insulting, degrading and flagrantly dishonest campaigner we’ve seen in modern times. Pay back is a bitch, as they say. It makes it very difficult for him to govern now at all, as even many in his own party intensely dislike him or don’t mind watching him flail. I have my own friends and family members who literally can’t bear any disagreement about him. One friend, who invited me over, started talking about him and literally became hysterical when I agreed on A,B and C insults, but not about D, and said heatedly he was going upstairs if I kept talking about him. The other day a relative started every sentence with how fair he was to Trump and then would become white hot with rage by the end of the sentence and called him a “Nazi.” Those are just my own experiences, but I see this all the time with Trump, mainly in op-eds criticizing him. Unfortunately, his supporters rarely match the emotion in defending him because it is so hard to defend someone who constantly shoots himself in the foot.
Anyone could justify doing their entire political review on Trump. He is almost the only subject and not just about politics. His adversaries make almost everything about him. Too much is written about him for me to want to do wander endlessly about him though. I’m just going to sum up some issues.
I still don’t see the Trump-Russian connection. Though some of his opposition says – but there are already indictments and a conviction – no there aren’t, not about his campaign's supposed collusion with Russia (which, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, isn’t a crime, unless it’s connected to a real crime). Neither Manafort nor his partner are accused of “collusion” crimes. Even Flynn, who had not yet been indicted will not likely be indicted for that. And Papadopoulos pled to lying to the FBI, which does not even rise to the level of perjury and is just a blunt tool to force people to say what the FBI wants it to say. Which makes any testimony he may have about collusion tainted. None of the above were or will be accused, as far as we know now, of any collusion, however their adversaries might choose to phrase it. So far, every revelation about a discussion or possibility of some minor league collusion, seems to show that there was none (not that there couldn’t be - I'm just not sure I'd think there was anything wrong with it).
Trump’s main problem is not the “resistance.” Had he the support of all Republicans in congress, he’d be able to sweep most of it aside. But, many of them give him tepid support and some, like McCain, Corker and Flake have just plain come out against him. Even the independent counsel is a product of Republican dislike for him, as they are the majority and could have limited the scope of the investigation or not had it at all (although it is largely Sessions' fault). Not that I have a problem with the investigation of Russian interference with the election or into Trump’s business conflicts. Both are legitimate topics. But, the craze over collusion so far looks delusional. Show me a fact, I’ll change my mind.
When I first assessed Trump in June of this year, I wrote that the following was dead in the water – the stupid wall; banning Muslims from America except for new standards for vetting asylum seekers in general; self or forced deportation of millions of illegal aliens and an independent counsel to investigate the Clinton emails.
In a comment Bear took me to task, suggesting it was already happening. I still disagree. So far, though he keeps trying – I think to make it look good for his base – congress has shown no interest in the stupid wall. Despite the hysteria over his orders, which affected citizens from seven, then six predominantly Muslim countries, there has never been an order banning Muslims and isn’t going to be.* The WH has already announced there will be no mass deportations and the only thing he has done is not renew an illegal DAPA (I didn’t say it – a court did) and tried to bolster the border patrol – crossings are way down and even his opposition has a hard time saying that we should not have a border (although, I do know there are some who feel that way). Last, right away it was announced that the email investigation was over, though I'm sure some Republicans would like to have it re-investigated. We’d need some dramatic new revelation to change that.
*Some people will argue that these are, in fact, Muslim bans and that even he has called it that and insisted that this is what it his orders really were. Well, as I said, he can be an moron. The orders specifically forbid discriminating by religion, although they are almost entirely Muslim countries. But, can anyone deny that these few countries do have a significant population which might pose a threat to us and do not have control of their own immigration or borders. In addition, we are not also so bound to them politically or otherwise so that a ban would destroy the relationship (e.g., Saudi Arabia). In any event, the entire population of these countries is well below 10% of the Muslims in the world. The latest so-called “ban,” was a proclamation which was also stayed by Hawaiian and Maryland district courts. Supposedly they will be appealed, but it is possible they will be ignored. I have to admit, though I think these orders mostly unnecessary, I am disturbed that under our constitutional system a district court (the lowest federal court) can stop the president from acting in what he believes is a national security matter in what I believe is a political way by lower courts. It gives a judge in the other party the opportunity to control what is legitimately presidential power. Imagine if nationwide orders of Exxon’s or Microsoft’s CEO could be stopped by a local production manager. This power was essentially usurped by the court system long ago (Obama had the media support to just ignore such orders when he wanted to) and I guess people like it.
But, despite all the negativity from the press towards Trump, despite the fierceness of his opposition and the distraction of the Russia investigation, he has what would certainly be considered successes for other presidents in that their supporters liked them (let’s not forget Obama got a Nobel Prize just for being elected). The economy is growing faster than it has in years, consumer confidence is up, as I said – illegal border crossings are down and the border administration doesn’t feel like they are the enemy, the rules of engagement for our armed forces has been made more reasonable, ISIS as a political and military force is being reduced rapidly, Russia has stopped pestering planes with theirs (I think since February, shortly after the inauguration) and Iran our ships since July when we fired warning shots at them. I think they get the message that there is a new sheriff in town - even if he sometimes acts like an idiot, who does not feel that humility is a virtue in foreign affairs. The stock market is at an all-time high (although, we should always be nervous about bullish markets). New jobs are way up and unemployment way down. New regulations have come to a stand-still and are being reduced, manufacturing and housing are up. NATO has responded to his call for a greater anti-terrorism focus. I could go on, but if you want to say those are talking points, they are. I took them from various lists so I wouldn’t have to think hard. Still, doesn’t mean they aren’t real. You will not see these arguments in most of the mainstream media though. You have to read online. Yes, you can absolutely argue that some, many or all of these things are actually bad for us (although some it would be hard to do so) or that he has little to do with him (again, some, you really can’t). I’m not judging here. Some things he does I like, more things I don’t. I’m just saying that other presidents would be given “credit” for them.
Love him, hate him. I know good people who feel both ways. We will be lucky if this is the narrative that we have for the next 4-8 years because it will mean nothing horrible has happened.
The future is easy to predict until you get there. I love to predict elections, even who is going to run, and sometimes I do it well, sometimes abominably. I really don’t think I’m any better or worse at it than anyone else. It is human nature to think when you are right it was because of some good qualities in you – logic, knowledge, intelligence, etc. And when you are wrong, it is because something unforeseeable got in the way. Even if we realize that this isn’t the case, we still feel that it is true anyway.
During the Obama years, I wrote about 8 of 10 installments of why he was the worst president in my lifetime. Even worse than his predecessor. Never finished it. Trump may surpass him too. I’m not sure yet because Trump hasn’t had a chance to do much. The other day - election day -the normal trend occurred, where the Democrats gained seats in the house during election following the presidential election. We don’t know if it is going to get worse next year when Senate seats are up for grabs. But, not unlikely. Trump can do nothing with a majority, I doubt he will do more with less of one. And maybe this is what is best, no party with complete control to wreak havoc on the idiots who elected them.
Nevertheless, I am going to start making election predictions for 2020 sooner than later, probably around the end of 2018, could be early 2019, which isn’t all that far away. If you wait until there’s a clear front runner, or just follow the polls, you aren't predicting much. The two main questions I’m asking myself now are no different than what many other people are wondering – will the Democrats continue what they’ve been doing and double down on the leftwards trend and nominate a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Sanders type, and, two, will Trump run again. Right now, I’d bet a little both things will be so, but I don’t feel a whole lot of conviction about it (actually, probably rarely do about these things).
In the meantime, enjoy or withstand the roller coaster, if you can.