Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

link

link

link

Nope, sorry, I do not see any mention of Williams and Kalvin Johnson in those links. Perhaps we should go back to the question. It is not whether there has been any Russian interference but whether this particular pair were funded by, or perhaps just fronts for, Russians, and if they were whether the Russians concerned were part of or funded by the Kremlin. At the moment the only evidence I am seeing is an unsourced media story. In the first instance I will treat that with the same gravitas as a story from Fox or Breitbart. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that these two individuals were involved with the Russians, I would just like some further information before I accept that as read.

[kenberg]

Nope, sorry, I do not see any mention of Williams and Kalvin Johnson in those links. Perhaps we should go back to the question. It is not whether there has been any Russian interference but whether this particular pair were funded by, or perhaps just fronts for, Russians, and if they were whether the Russians concerned were part of or funded by the Kremlin. At the moment the only evidence I am seeing is an unsourced media story. In the first instance I will treat that with the same gravitas as a story from Fox or Breitbart. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that these two individuals were involved with the Russians, I would just like some further information before I accept that as read.

 

I agree. In a way, this goes along with what i was saying. Even if it turns out that the Russians did do this specific attack, it might have been anyone and in the future it will be others.

 

In fact it could be difficult to trace just how this came about unless, and perhaps even if, you have considerable legal powers. Presumably people got paid. Even that requires some sort of investigative authority. Tracking the source? Not easy, I imagine.

 

The whole thing is a serious mess.

[Winstonm]

Nope, sorry, I do not see any mention of Williams and Kalvin Johnson in those links. Perhaps we should go back to the question. It is not whether there has been any Russian interference but whether this particular pair were funded by, or perhaps just fronts for, Russians, and if they were whether the Russians concerned were part of or funded by the Kremlin. At the moment the only evidence I am seeing is an unsourced media story. In the first instance I will treat that with the same gravitas as a story from Fox or Breitbart. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that these two individuals were involved with the Russians, I would just like some further information before I accept that as read.

 

Here is the link to the Daily Beast article. As you will see, it is marked as an "exclusive". Thus far, I have seen no other comfirmation of this story. That could change later today or never. We will have to wait and see.

[Winstonm]

This from Politico is eye-opening.

[Winstonm]

Nope, sorry, I do not see any mention of Williams and Kalvin Johnson in those links. Perhaps we should go back to the question. It is not whether there has been any Russian interference but whether this particular pair were funded by, or perhaps just fronts for, Russians, and if they were whether the Russians concerned were part of or funded by the Kremlin. At the moment the only evidence I am seeing is an unsourced media story. In the first instance I will treat that with the same gravitas as a story from Fox or Breitbart. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that these two individuals were involved with the Russians, I would just like some further information before I accept that as read.

 

You might be interested to know that MSNBC tonight broadcast one of the "Williams and Kalvin" ads and reported that it had been taken down by youtube(google) in August 2016 because it was found to be connected to Russia.

 

And there is also this.

[kenberg]

A little morning humor

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-iq-test-for-president-trump/2017/10/10/c0e586d8-adef-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.c229c4a61b60

[Winstonm]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/israeli-spies-found-russians-using-015142562.html

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli intelligence officials spying on Russian government hackers found they were using Kaspersky Lab antivirus software that is also used by 400 million people globally, including U.S. government agencies, according to media reports on Tuesday.

 

I guess Kaspersky is the name of that 400 pound guy sitting on his bed. B-)

[y66]

What can Dems do? Good review of the bidding here by Thomas Edsall. Excerpts:

 

The greatest threat to the next Democratic nominee for President isn’t white working class voters, but in fact our inability to cobble back and hold together the core of Obama’s back to back majority coalitions. The “protest vote” by millennials — HRC’s significant underperformance with younger voters, particularly younger voters of color — is actually where she was most notably off of Obama’s performance in the overall battleground aggregate.

 

when you have between 6 to 9 percent of younger voters of color breaking 3rd Party in their ‘protest vote’ that kills the Democrat’s chance to reach Obama’s margins most notably in places like Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin.

 

When Trump stands up in front of his audience at rallies during the campaign and tells them he’s going to give them their country back, Trump is having a conversation about race. Our response is that we are going to raise the minimum wage — we are having a conversation about economics. We are playing checkers while Trump is playing chess. And he continues to do so as he focuses on things like Black N.F.L. players taking a knee. Until Democrats can inoculate against some of the heightened angst, most prominently found among blue collar whites, about the changing face of America, they will struggle to compete for white non-college voters.

 

Heightened tribal polarization is the primary hurdle to Democrats’ ability to better compete and win white non-college voters. Avoiding that conversation isn’t going to work. We can’t solve for that angst with a promise to simply help make college more affordable. Until we can better engage these voters in a conversation that lessens their very real angst about the changes that are happening in the country and pivot to a compelling narrative about how we all win the future together or divided we will certainly lose it to our competitors, Democrats will struggle mightily to compete for white non-college voters broadly and particularly in The South.

Still struggling mightily to compete for white non-college voters? Shakes head.

[Winstonm]

If you don't think Trump allows spite about Obama to guide his actions, read what his own advisers say about the Iran deal:

 

The solution is a compromise that retains the agreement but also puts Iran and U.S. allies on notice that Trump is willing to walk away. Meanwhile, Trump is likely to make the case that as the Islamic State terrorist group is weakened, Iran is reasserting itself as the most destructive influence in the Middle East and using the nuclear deal as cover to do so.

 

“He doesn’t want to certify the Iran deal for more domestic reasons than international ones,” said Vali Nasr, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “He doesn’t want to certify that any piece of the Obama strategy is working.”

 

Doesn't matter what is good for the country or world, only how can Trump get spiteful revenge on the black guy who humiliated him at a dinner.

[Kaitlyn S]

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson. Even though the piece seems to slap the liberals, my conservative friends have a problem with her admitting that the liberals might be correct on the NFL controversy.

 

Anyway:

 

A Perspective on the Perception of Racism in America

by Ashley Johnson

 

A post making the rounds on Facebook describes the people who disagree with the protesting NFL players racist.

 

Is there really one liberal that is so mentally inept that he honestly believes that the proud Americans that are outraged at the NFL and its players wouldn’t be equally incensed if those players were white?

 

Many of the persons sharing this post are highly intelligent people. Do they really think it’s racism when someone disagrees with a black person because he is black? If one would take issue with the same idea if the protester was white, calling the act of disagreement racism is disingenuous at best.

 

There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with those angry with the NFL protesters, in fact, I would take no issue with them saying the “boycott the NFL” crowd is wrong; indeed it is easy to support the argument that the protesters are invoking their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and air their grievances.

 

However, there is a difference between calling someone wrong and accusing them of racism – one implies being human and the other connotes evil.

 

Calling this racism demeans the word, letting real racists get away with blatant racist acts by lumping them in with normal proud Americans. After all, if you call me a racist, I’ll probably ignore you when you correctly use the term.

 

If any intelligent person thought for a moment before sharing this post, he would have realized that he was propagating an incorrect notion. This didn’t happen, so it can only be assumed that the posters did it out of habit, like washing their hands after using the loo. How has it become second nature for otherwise smart people to use the term racist in such a senseless manner, essentially using the label on anybody that disagrees with current liberal thinking?

 

Modern liberals are acting as if in a hypnotized trance when using the term. They certainly aren’t thinking when utilizing it. It is a sad commentary on our nation when so many of our youth are hypnotized and not using their brains. Who is hypnotizing them? And what is their motive? This would be the time for all liberals to start thinking critically and searching their soul for the answers to those two questions. For whatever the motive is, the force that is causing young Americans to stop thinking has to be evil.

[Winstonm]

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson. Even though the piece seems to slap the liberals, my conservative friends have a problem with her admitting that the liberals might be correct on the NFL controversy.

 

Anyway:

 

A Perspective on the Perception of Racism in America

by Ashley Johnson

 

A post making the rounds on Facebook describes the people who disagree with the protesting NFL players racist.

 

Is there really one liberal that is so mentally inept that he honestly believes that the proud Americans that are outraged at the NFL and its players wouldn’t be equally incensed if those players were white?

 

Many of the persons sharing this post are highly intelligent people. Do they really think it’s racism when someone disagrees with a black person because he is black? If one would take issue with the same idea if the protester was white, calling the act of disagreement racism is disingenuous at best.

 

There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with those angry with the NFL protesters, in fact, I would take no issue with them saying the “boycott the NFL” crowd is wrong; indeed it is easy to support the argument that the protesters are invoking their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and air their grievances.

 

However, there is a difference between calling someone wrong and accusing them of racism – one implies being human and the other connotes evil.

 

Calling this racism demeans the word, letting real racists get away with blatant racist acts by lumping them in with normal proud Americans. After all, if you call me a racist, I’ll probably ignore you when you correctly use the term.

 

If any intelligent person thought for a moment before sharing this post, he would have realized that he was propagating an incorrect notion. This didn’t happen, so it can only be assumed that the posters did it out of habit, like washing their hands after using the loo. How has it become second nature for otherwise smart people to use the term racist in such a senseless manner, essentially using the label on anybody that disagrees with current liberal thinking?

 

Modern liberals are acting as if in a hypnotized trance when using the term. They certainly aren’t thinking when utilizing it. It is a sad commentary on our nation when so many of our youth are hypnotized and not using their brains. Who is hypnotizing them? And what is their motive? This would be the time for all liberals to start thinking critically and searching their soul for the answers to those two questions. For whatever the motive is, the force that is causing young Americans to stop thinking has to be evil.

The true Scotsman fallacy (I'm not a real racist because I don't wear a white sheet) does not make for a convincing argument

 

I think this is a matter of terms and perception. Many people do not consider themselves "racists" although they agree with the precepts of those who espouse the ideas based on "white privilege". Personally, I think it is tick-tack, that racism is a broad term that encompasses many shades from the extremist KKK members to those people who believe that Mexicans are "good people" as long as "they stay in their neighborhoods", and the like.

 

White supremacist, white nationalist, alt-right, white privilege, and Christian Right are all categories of racism that less overt racists find being branded as more comfortable, a rationalization for deeply held bias. Note, racism is not a bias simply against black-skinned people; racism is a bias against those who are not like us, whoever "us" happens to be. To be fair, in many cases the bias is innate and not easily recognized within oneself.

 

This is one of the problems with the liberal message: it is not easily consolidated to a bumper sticker. It requires explanation and thinking.

[kenberg]

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson. Even though the piece seems to slap the liberals, my conservative friends have a problem with her admitting that the liberals might be correct on the NFL controversy.

 

Anyway:

 

A Perspective on the Perception of Racism in America

by Ashley Johnson

 

A post making the rounds on Facebook describes the people who disagree with the protesting NFL players racist.

 

Is there really one liberal that is so mentally inept that he honestly believes that the proud Americans that are outraged at the NFL and its players wouldn't be equally incensed if those players were white?

 

Rest deleted

 

This is a strange post, I think. At least it is hard to respond to.

 

We have Kaitlyn, quoting Ashley Johnson, who refers to a Facebook posting that is "making the rounds",, but that I haven't seen, saying that someone, who knows who, has called someone else a racist. So what do I think of that? What can I say? I don't think the article is very deep, but that's probably not the point of the question. Generally I am not much into name calling, but I am not sure that is what you have in mind either. Although I do admit to having said some unkind words about Facebook.

[hrothgar]

Greetings from yunnan

 

Wrt kaitlyn's post

 

Without going into specifics

 

1. Based on kaitlyn's own postings I am quite sure that she is a dyed in the wool racist

 

2. Based on here own postings she dislikes being confronted with this fact

 

3. I dont find irsurprising that other racist whites dilike hearing the same

 

As to the actual posting, I don't recall hearing an enormous hue and cry about whites opposing these protests as being racist; rather I have heard lots of folks saying that they are very wrong

[awm]

Suppose that a group of white players chose to kneel for the anthem. Their explanation:

 

“The America I know and love has ceded its sovereignty by agreeing to trade deals like NAFTA and by allowing so many illegal immigrants into the country. Our country’s greatness has been badly hurt, and so I kneel for America just as I would for an injured teammate, in the hope that she will someday recover and become Great Again”

 

Would the people objecting to the protest of black players similarly object to such a protest by white players? I very much doubt it!

 

The conclusion is that the objection is not really about kneeling during the anthem — it is about the reason they are kneeling. Basically the objection is that we ought not to care that unarmed black people are being shot by police, or at least we ought not to have to think about it when we’d rather be distracted by football. If this is not actual racism, it is at least a refusal to confront racism — essentially saying “that’s not my problem, I don’t want to hear about it, shut up and entertain me.”

 

When the KKK was out lynching people, there were a lot of white folks who weren’t in the KKK... but didn’t object, didn’t do anything about it, and were annoyed when black people (and some non-black allies) were marching because the marches were “disturbing the peace” and forcing them to confront an uncomfortable situation that they’d rather write off as “not my problem.” Were those white people racist?

 

It is all a matter of degree, I guess.

[cherdano]

In the world I grew up in, kneeling was considered the single most respectful gesture. That's why we kneel in church, or in front of the pope or the king. Why is it suddenly considered "disrespecting the flag" when African-American players do it?

 

The Vice President of the USA attended an NFL game (flying out there from the West Coast and back) just in order to be able to leave after some players kneeled during the anthem. In other words, he used the anthem as prop for a political stunt. Isn't this disrespecting the anthem? Why should an old white powerful guy be allowed to use the anthem to stage a protest, but not young African-Americans?

 

I am not saying everyone who got outraged by Kaepernick and not outraged by Pence is a racist. But it is sure as hell quite difficult to explain your thinking without assuming some form of racial bias...

 

Btw Kaitlyn, still proud of your vote for the temper-throwing toddler in the White House? Whose aides have to find a way to save the Iran deal while giving the toddler the feeling that he did his part in destroying it? Who, after he didn't get his way on Obamacare repeal, is now sabotaging the law in order to raise premiums for millions, while increasing federal spending and covering fewer people?

 

Oh right I forgot, in your world everything Obama did is the work of the devil, hence everything Trump does out of spite to Obama you will proudly applaud.

[kenberg]

In the world I grew up in, kneeling was considered the single most respectful gesture. That's why we kneel in church, or in front of the pope or the king. Why is it suddenly considered "disrespecting the flag" when African-American players do it?

 

Analogies often cause more problems than they solve and this is an instance. To make the analogy work we have to imagine a person in front of a king. The person refuses to kneel, saying "Where I come from we stand for the national anthem as a show of respect, so I will stand in front you.. Surely you will not see this as disrespectful". At least in some kingdoms this would be seriously dangerous.

 

When I am in a church, maybe for a wedding or funeral, I don't join in the call and response that sometimes occurs, but if the congregation is told to kneel I kneel. I am there for the wedding or the funeral, I am not there to engage in a discussion of religious beliefs. I greatly appreciate it if the pastor/priest/rabbi somewhere makes it clear that s/he realizes that not everyone attending this event shares the beliefs of the church. A few years back I was at a wedding where I thought the pastor was pretty clear that I, and probably quite a few others, were not all that welcome. I just let my mind wander to math or bridge.

 

I'm not big on forcing, or psychologically pressing, people to declare their piety or their allegiance or any particular belief. I prefer to say what I want to say about god or country or whatever at a time and place and in a manner of my choosing. If I were at a football game, which I have not been for many years, I think my attitude would be "I came to see the game, I am hoping it is ok by everyone if I do not, here and now, take any position whatsoever on whether any player or fan should or should not kneel or stand".

 

As for Donald Trump's involvement, it suits him. It's easy to take a loud position without actually knowing anything.

[y66]

Real Americans like Kaitlyn know what words like respect, patriotism and racism really mean and for whom and under what circumstances the first amendment applies and so they vote for men who do not respect women, who don't serve in times of war and who are clearly racists.

 

Trump has nothing on Kaitlyn when it comes to trolling people who don't share her nausea inducing values.

[barmar]

Analogies often cause more problems than they solve and this is an instance. To make the analogy work we have to imagine a person in front of a king. The person refuses to kneel, saying "Where I come from we stand for the national anthem as a show of respect, so I will stand in front you.. Surely you will not see this as disrespectful". At least in some kingdoms this would be seriously dangerous.

To make it even clearer, imagine someone extending their right arm diagonally upward instead of holding their hand over their heart during the anthem. There was a time and place when that was the highest indication of respect.

 

Context is important.

[Winstonm]

From Vox: from a talk by Timothy Snyder, a Yale historian

 

Why, after all, do we strive for better policies today? Presumably it’s so that our lives can be improved tomorrow. But Trump reverses this. He anchors his discourse to a mythological past, so that voters are thinking less about the future and more about what they think they lost.

 

“Trump isn’t after success — he’s after failure,” Snyder argued. By that, he means that Trump isn’t after what we’d typically consider success — passing good legislation that improves the lives of voters. Instead, Trump has defined the problems in such a way that they can’t be solved. We can’t be young again. We can’t go backward in time. We can’t relive some lost golden age. So these voters are condemned to perpetual disappointment.

 

The counterargument is that Trump’s idealization of the past is, in its own way, an expression of a desire for a better future. If you’re a Trump voter, restoring some lost version of America or revamping trade policies or rebuilding the military is a way to create a better tomorrow based on a model from the past.

 

For Snyder, though, that’s not really the point. The point is that Trump’s nostalgia is a tactic designed to distract voters from the absence of serious solutions. Trump may not be an authoritarian, Snyder warns, but this is something authoritarians typically do. They need the public to be angry, resentful, and focused on problems that can’t be remedied.

[Zelandakh]

I'd like to hear the liberal's take on this piece written by Ashley Johnson.

I would like to hear your take on why conservatives are objecting so strongly to athletes kneeling for the anthem (a form of protest specifically designed not to be unpatriotic after discussion with veterans) and have not objected to athletes sitting for the anthem, which Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing for over half a century. I know that JWs were at one time subjected to much abuse for this action, and I am certain that in some areas that remains the case, yet it seems that only with the recent protests has it become "unpatriotic" amongst non-extremists. The reason for that change might even help shed some light to you on the matter.

[RedSpawn]

Suppose that a group of white players chose to kneel for the anthem. Their explanation:

 

“The America I know and love has ceded its sovereignty by agreeing to trade deals like NAFTA and by allowing so many illegal immigrants into the country. Our country’s greatness has been badly hurt, and so I kneel for America just as I would for an injured teammate, in the hope that she will someday recover and become Great Again”

 

Would the people objecting to the protest of black players similarly object to such a protest by white players? I very much doubt it!

 

The conclusion is that the objection is not really about kneeling during the anthem — it is about the reason they are kneeling. Basically the objection is that we ought not to care that unarmed black people are being shot by police, or at least we ought not to have to think about it when we’d rather be distracted by football. If this is not actual racism, it is at least a refusal to confront racism — essentially saying “that’s not my problem, I don’t want to hear about it, shut up and entertain me.”

 

When the KKK was out lynching people, there were a lot of white folks who weren’t in the KKK... but didn’t object, didn’t do anything about it, and were annoyed when black people (and some non-black allies) were marching because the marches were “disturbing the peace” and forcing them to confront an uncomfortable situation that they’d rather write off as “not my problem.” Were those white people racist?

 

It is all a matter of degree, I guess.

I think we need to take a step back about the national anthem controversy and really get intellectually honest about what is going on here.

 

The problem is our tacit rule that African-Americans are not supposed to dictate the terms or conditions under which a protest or an act of civil disobedience is supposed to take place. The PTB are supposed to do that.

 

Martin Luther King was not supposed to lead the Civil Rights Movement

in the 1960's as the collective nation at the time wasn't really ready to deal with the reality of accepting African-Americans as equal and fully participating citizens in the institutions of America. The time honored traditions of racism, segregation, and disenfrachisement were hard habits to break especially when they are endorsed by the government and reinforced by cultural tribalism.

 

There were times that many government officials asked MLK to stop his movement as he was creating civil unrest by trying to change a well understood, fully appreciated, and police-enforced white power structure. The notion was that the PTB knew when the appropriate time to cede power and rights to African-Americans would be; and that time would be on the 9th of never.

 

The unwritten rule is the oppressed have neither the power nor the resolve to determine when the timing is right to stage acts of civil disobedience. They should acquiesce to a dream deferred and play nice. They should go along to get along until the PTB feel comfortable giving what should have been a given in the 1st place.

 

So, employed athletes should know that the playing of the national anthem during a televised football game is neither the time nor the place to stage an act of civil disobedience. The American people don't need to be reminded of uncomfortable political realities at the beginning of a football game, especially when said matters affect about 15%+ of the population. The football game is supposed to be a time of recreation, relaxation, camaraderie, and a time for profit. And now we have African-American athletes injecting political concerns into a NFL franchise owned by rich white men. The line of thinking is that the government will handle the matter of police brutality and disparate treatment of African-Americans by police officers in due time and on its own schedule.

 

We don't need meddling uppity African-American athletes using a NFL broadcast as a platform for political commentary. PLAY NICE AND PLAY FOOTBALL DAMMIT!

 

Also, we don't need any malcontents, dissidents or MLK wanna-be's stirring the visceral racial pot by refusing to stand during the national anthem. They should thank their lucky stars they are in America and should show patriotism at all times even if they know people in their immediate or extended family who have been assaulted or abused by police officers. Their family member probably deserved it or provoked the officer to deliver a good ass whipping or put 15+ caps in the perpetrator's body.

 

Sarcasm included.

[Winstonm]

I think we need to take a step back about the national anthem controversy and really get intellectually honest about what is going on here.

 

The problem is our tacit rule that African-Americans are not supposed to dictate the terms or conditions under which a protest or an act of civil disobedience is supposed to take place. The PTB are supposed to do that.

 

Martin Luther King was not supposed to lead the Civil Rights Movement

in the 1960's as the collective nation at the time wasn't really ready to deal with the reality of accepting African-Americans as equal and fully participating citizens in the institutions of America. The time honored traditions of racism, segregation, and disenfrachisement were hard habits to break especially when they are endorsed by the government and reinforced by cultural tribalism.

 

There were times that many government officials asked MLK to stop his movement as he was creating civil unrest by trying to change a well understood, fully appreciated, and police-enforced white power structure. The notion was that the PTB knew when the appropriate time to cede power and rights to African-Americans would be; and that time would be on the 9th of never.

 

The unwritten rule is the oppressed have neither the power nor the resolve to determine when the timing is right to stage acts of civil disobedience. They should acquiesce to a dream deferred and play nice. They should go along to get along until the PTB feel comfortable giving what should have been a given in the 1st place.

 

So, employed athletes should know that the playing of the national anthem during a televised football game is neither the time nor the place to stage an act of civil disobedience. The American people don't need to be reminded of uncomfortable political realities at the beginning of a football game, especially when said matters affect about 15%+ of the population. The football game is supposed to be a time of recreation, relaxation, camaraderie, and a time for profit. And now we have African-American athletes injecting political concerns into a NFL franchise owned by rich white men. The line of thinking is that the government will handle the matter of police brutality and disparate treatment of African-Americans by police officers in due time and on its own schedule.

 

We don't need meddling uppity African-American athletes using a NFL broadcast as a platform for political commentary. PLAY NICE AND PLAY FOOTBALL DAMMIT!

 

Also, we don't need any malcontents, dissidents or MLK wanna-be's stirring the visceral racial pot by refusing to stand during the national anthem. They should thank their lucky stars they are in America and should show patriotism at all times even if they know people in their immediate or extended family who have been assaulted or abused by police officers. Their family member probably deserved it or provoked the officer to deliver a good ass whipping or put 15+ caps in the perpetrator's body.

 

Sarcasm included.

 

This WaPo opinion piece echoes your sentiments:

 

With Pence’s stunt, Trump’s tweets, Jones’s edict and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s statement saying players should stand, the debate about players standing for the national anthem is no longer about the flag. This is not about the anthem. This is not about supporting the troops. This is about putting outspoken black people back in their place in America — subordinate, and silent about the racism, police brutality and white supremacy that affect our lives everyday. This is about controlling what are considered “acceptable” ways for black people to protest.

[cherdano]

By the way, having grown up in 1980s Germany I have very different associations and feelings about flags than most people. Back then, proudly displaying the German flag was widely frowned upon. And so most people wouldn't. And so, when you saw a house prominently flying a large German flag, it wasn't wrong to assume that the owners might be of the ultra-conservative kind. Ultra-conservative in the sense of dreaming of restoring German borders back to where they were in 1939, or 1940.

Now some of that changed. Call it a modest cultural reappropriation of the German flag. People enjoyed the run of Germany's team at the 1990 world cup, and bought small flags for their cars or for their toddlers. There were lots of newspaper editorials debating whether that was ok, and they decided it was. So nowadays, when you see someone displaying a large flag, you know that either a football game, or someone ultra-conservative, or a neo-nazi is around.

 

This is really just a long explanation for why I may have idiosyncratic views (by world-wide standards) on flags, anthems, and related ceremonies. (Like Germany, I've mellowed on the issue a bit over time, now they just make me cringe terribly.)

 

But... If you had told my 20-year old self that at big sporting events, there would be a huge patriotic display of the flag along with the anthem, and that everybody was expected to stand, and that those who didn't stand would risk losing their jobs, my 20-year old self would have considered that the beginning of fascism.

 

Well, I couldn't win an argument with my 20-year old self about that. Could you?

[ldrews]

With the way that we throw words and labels around I thought it might be useful to review the actual definitions of some of those words. From Merriam-Webster:

 

Socialism:

1 :any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a :a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b :a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 :a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

 

Fascism:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

 

Communism:

1 a :a theory advocating elimination of private property

b :a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 capitalized

a :a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official I ideology of the U.S.S.R.

b :a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c :a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

d :communist systems collectively

 

Authoritarian:

1 :of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority

had authoritarian parents

2 :of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

an authoritarian regime

 

Dictatorship:

1 :the office of dictator

2 :autocratic rule, control, or leadership

people suffering under his dictatorship

3 a :a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique

Communism and dictatorship

b :a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated

rising up against a military dictatorship

c :a despotic state

establishing a dictatorship

[Kaitlyn S]

As to the actual posting, I don't recall hearing an enormous hue and cry about whites opposing these protests as being racist; rather I have heard lots of folks saying that they are very wrong

We have a different circle of Facebook friends. It's likely that one of mine picked up the one calling the NFL boycotters racist and the many of the rest of them shared it, giving me the impression that the opinion is prevalent among liberals.

 

FWIW, I think the NFL protesters are exercising their First Amendment right. The NFL boycotters are doing the same, but I don't think they understand the issue as most of them feel that the NFL protestors are anti-America and I just don't see that.

 

Also, while it may not surprise you that I agree with Trump a lot more than any of you do, I've gotta say that I don't agree with him on this one, and even if I did, I would be a lot happier if he worried more about issues like Puerto Rico and North Korea than tweeting about the NFL.