There is the logic of the thing, which can be briefly discussed, and then there is the fact of show business. I am speaking of the seated Colin Kaepernick.
The logic of the thing is pretty straightforward. Colin Kaepernick has the absolute right to remain seated for the national anthem, without fear of fines, penalties or other forms of undue pressure from the NFL. We never want to be in a position where we honor those men who fight for our freedom, and then vilify other men for exercising it. A lot of conservatives need to make sure they don’t become snowflakes of the right.
This is especially the case when we remember the context. Kaepernick is doing this in an NFL that has become a weather vane when it comes to PC issues. We are all aware of the fact that if an evangelical QB refused to stand for the national anthem in protest of Obergefell, the athlete in question would be destroyed by those who are currently whooping in favor of athletes exercising their right to free speech. Not only would there be an outcry for the NFL to “do something,” the NFL would in fact do something about it. So if we want to point out their inconsistency in this, we have to be careful not to be exhibiting it ourselves. The judgment with which ye judge, ye shall be judged.
But then there is also the show business aspect to this. What does Kaepernick owe his team? Besides trying hard not to tuck and run so much? He should show up for practices, obey the team rules, inspire the team, execute the plays, try hard to win, and cash his checks. That is the “punch the clock” aspect to it. But he needs also to remember that professional sports really are show business, and show business means that you are dependent upon the good will of the fans. Just as Kaepernick has the right to remain seated during the anthem, so also Joe Six-pack has the right to not buy his son a Kaepernick jersey for his birthday—not because of a concerted effort to boycott anything, but rather because a fan’s job is to like or dislike the celebrity offered up for public consumption. And—call this a hunch—the fans here are more important to his future success as a quarterback than he is important to their future happiness. The only way he can get out of the fix he put himself in would be to go undefeated through the season and then win the Super Bowl. That might do it.
Quite apart from the validity of the cause he is championing, the fact is that a multi-millionaire is making himself the leader of the downtrodden masses, and that is a hard sell. Donald Trump somehow pulled it off, but we may have used up our quota for 2016.
My cynical side wonders what kind of oppression he’ll be protesting if he marries his muslim girlfriend (who appears to be the motivation behind this) and she then divorces him and takes half of his stuff.
He’s free to do whatever, but it wouldn’t surprise me if this is him trying to do impress his girlfriend.
To that end, maybe he should just outfit his team’s cheer leaders in burkinis instead!
????
And forcibly marry all of them!
Who knew harems were making a come-back?
Oh right, Jeff Epstein and Bill Clinton.????
In honor of Gene Wilder, this seems pertinent
https://youtu.be/493pL_Vbtnc?t=14
If he’s left with half his stuff he still has no grounds to cry oppression.
OTOH, it would do well to question if Kaepernick’s assumed role is of the reformer, or of the revolutionary.
Converting to Islam and abandoning loyalty to your country’s symbols aren’t things done to improve a country, but to change that country into something entirely different.
Not identifying with the US isn’t an inherently bad thing, as I believe ashv would agree, we just shouldn’t think that Kaepernick is on our side, whatever “our” may mean.
Yeah, the enemy of my enemy sure ain’t my friend. The chief note sounded here is one of ingratitude, and many similar stories in the past few years have given me a rather negative view of adoption.
Because if a talented person works extremely hard to legitimately qualify for a high-paying salary in an extremely competitive workplace, then they’re obliged to show gratitude to the government.
You’re really sounding a lot like Obama right there.
I don’t think he’s talking about gratitude towards the government.
You can look at the whole transcript, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone can see any “ingratitude” towards anyone other than the government.
If any of the usual suspects want to make this about anything else, they’re going to really have to struggle to use Mr. Kaepernick’s words to do it.
http://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2016/08/28/transcript-colin-kaepernick-addresses-sitting-during-national-anthem/
I’ve been trying to figure out how to reply because this hits at an area where I’m kinda perplexed. I think you’re right, in your comment to someone else in this thread, about questioning pledging allegiance to the federal government. I agree that that’s a good thing to question, whether or not one continues saying the pledge or standing for the anthem. But, I think it’s tough to completely delineate between symbols for the USG and symbols for the American people — or at least a particular portion of the American populace, and perhaps that’s the rub. So, I’m in… Read more »
In reading that quite long transcript, I simply don’t see anything anti-White there. I’ve looked through some of Kaepernick’s previous statements, and I didn’t see anything anti-White there either. His message seems very focused on the American government and the systems, and so far he has done a fairly good job of articulating that. I see absolutely no evidence anywhere that he’s “protesting against a particular people”. I do agree that the symbols are sacrosanct to a particular demographic of White Americans. It would be helpful if that demographic spent more time reflecting on why it’s so hard for the… Read more »
From that particular interview, it doesn’t appear that CK is targeting his protest at white people proper. That’s agreed. But what particular group of people are “triggered” (to use Christian Histo’s phrasing) by CK’s protest? Without any polling data, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say white people. I’d also be willing to conjecture that that’s not merely because there are just a whole lot of white people in America, but because there’s probably a difference in, and not solely in degree, loyalty towards “America” felt by white people vs. black people and other ethnicities. Suppose you… Read more »
I agree with some of what you said, but I don’t think the “conglomeration of many nations” idea works unless you argue that the composition of each of those nations and who belongs within them has been frequently shifting within America’s history. I think if Christians did a better job of emphasizing their one identity within the Kingdom of God, and being comparatively far less attached to all the other identities, it would go a long, long ways to solving the issue. Of course, the Church can’t fix non-Christians, but there are enough Christians in this country that a movement… Read more »
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” POTUS B.O. J’, not that I care too much about this particular instance with C.K., but I think everyone grants that there is “this unbelievable American system that we have, that allowed you to thrive”. It’s always tricky to show society respect… Read more »
So let’s say you grow up as a rich aristocrat in a feudal society. You realize that while you are really well off, most people are not. Are you not allowed to protest the injustice of the society simply because you were one of the lucky ones? The fact that he was one of the few who succeeded tremendously within the system, but he recognizes that many, many others did not, should be a reason to congratulate him, not condemn him. Empathy for others who suffer beyond what you yourself have experienced is a good thing. This is one of… Read more »
J’, less drama please. Neither I , nor Wilson for that matter, object to CK’s right to protest. I am more interested in the most effective way to do so. I am not certain I have a good answer yet. Hence the conversation.????
Look at the line of comments you entered. I’m responding to people who clearly think that Kaepernick is an ungrateful Black man who has failed to be grateful enough to White people. I don’t think I’m upping the drama level of this thread at all. Look at the direction the train of comments took: “Not identifying with the US isn’t an inherently bad thing, as I believe ashv would agree, we just shouldn’t think that Kaepernick is on our side, whatever “our” may mean.” “Yeah, the enemy of my enemy sure ain’t my friend. The chief note sounded here is… Read more »
“The majority of publicly prominent Black people in America are in professions where their ability to earn a living can be seriously restricted if White people don’t happen to like something that they have to say.” I don’t see how that’s not true for most “publicly prominent” white people. And The Dixie Chicks were obviously white. People inclined to be racist will certainly have a reaction tinged with, or rooted in, racism. That doesn’t mean that the reaction itself is necessarily racist. Maybe a lot of those reacting just honestly think that a guy of any color whose life has… Read more »
Are you implying there’s no difference between White people having their ability to speak largely monitored by other White people, and Black people having their ability to speak largely monitored by White people? The point is obviously that in the end, it’s almost always the White people who are filtering out the message. That’s why Jeremiah Wright’s sermons were so shocking to some people in 2008 – it wasn’t actually that extreme at all (and, in fact, not nearly as extreme as what many people in the same cohort would say during the Obama administration), but they were absolutely shocked… Read more »
I wasn’t shocked because Wright’s heterodoxy didn’t “meet white approval”: I was shocked because it was blasphemous. I “know what he was saying” and it’s still blasphemous to use God’s name and misuse His word that way. He could have made valid points about the manifold sins and crimes of America and actually been reverent and biblical. Pastors of all colors do it all the time. The problem here isn’t that Kaepernick’s words didn’t meet “white approval” it’s that they are wrong. Some white people happen to agree with that, and some agree with that because they are racists and… Read more »
What’s wrong about Kaepernick’s words? Because I think one of the most telling things about the controversy is that of all the things people are complaining about, almost NO ONE is actually saying what’s wrong with his words in any sort of reasoned, explicit way. If we had the conversation purely about the validity of Kaepernick’s complaint, it would be a much better conversation. You’re welcome to have your own issues with what Wright said. But that’s not what most of America who didn’t like his comments was responding to. Of the many Wright statements that were constantly rebroadcast as… Read more »
To clarify, I don’t want to imply that Wright’s words were un-offensive or correct. But the really visceral, extremely negative reaction that came from certain quarters went far beyond the normal response for a pastor saying offensive or incorrect things. I think of Trump saying that he doesn’t need to repent or ask forgiveness from God, a far more obviously theologically ridiculous statement, which was obviously disputed by many people, defended by others, but responded to with visceral anger by almost nobody. Or conservative pastors (including Pastor Wilson on several occasions) blaming bad things that happen nationally or internationally on… Read more »
J’, I think we are talking about at least 2 different things here. An area where you might be projecting is here: “When thousands of people are saying that he should just shut up and play, that as a prominent Black athlete he shouldn’t have a voice even as strong as the mere act of remaining seated,” As Homer SImpson once said: “Celeberties! Is there anything they don’t know?” ; – ) I don’t see anyone here saying C.K. should not have a voice. Some do question the content and context of C.K’s particular demonstration There is a racial undercurrent… Read more »
Here’s an interesting development:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-green-beret-nate-boyer-meets-with-colin-kaepernick-for-a-good-talk/
J’, Thanks for the link! In my “moral universe”, that was a good story. If we wait to stand up for each other, untill we are all 100%, in the opinion of others, we will be waiting a long time! ; – ) One knee up and one knee down for C.K., as an expression, sounds about right for him. As a funny aside, we both know we would be prosecuted, if we only partially paid our taxes, as an “expression” against an aspect of our country that we did not like. To some degree, we have to take the… Read more »
I agree. Prominent Black Americans such as Brendan Eich, Jason Richwine, and less-prominent ones such as Eric Moutsos or Melissa and Aaron Klein have had their lives destroyed by White people who have disapproved of what they had to say. This bigotry must end.
I think you’d be well-off taking some sort of course in basic logic, and attempting to adhere to it afterwards.
I agree that some of the response here is openly antagonistic to black people in general. But I disagree with your last statement. I think that a white player who refused to stand for the anthem would be subject to criticism by many whites who object to politicizing what they see as entertainment. And, whatever cause he was honoring by refusing to stand would bring down condemnation by some portion of the population. I think that prominent black and white people are both currently subjected to massive censorship. What we may safely say in public is limited, and I think… Read more »
Zinn.
Hi Jonathan, sincerely AltRight.
(:
Zinn……?
Seems to me that you’re incapable of understanding symbolism. How many people angered by refusal to do homage to the flag are upset because it’s showing disrespect to the government?
Well, quite a large proportion of them seem to think that it’s primarily rooted in his disrespect of the government’s military. (Despite his quite pro-military statements afterwards.) Can you explain exactly who you feel he has ingratitude towards, using his own words on the subject, which are extensive? The fact that you immediately connected his “ingratitude” to his adoption makes it quite clear what you’re really trying to get at. 40 acres certainly got your message loud and clear: “White Christians adopting non-whites often has terrible results. Which is hardly surprising, as it’s a perversion of nature and God’s design… Read more »
Obama does not like America; Obama is a muslim and a communist.
You’ve become a parody of yourself Timothy. Obama is not a Muslim or a Communist by any definition of those words. As long as you spend your time in the ridiculous land where you begin with such assumptions, you’re not going to convince or understand reasonable people engaged in these conversations. And claiming someone says he loves America in fact hates America is a vague and unsupportable assertion. But I haven’t seen the slightest evidence that Obama “likes America” any less than, say, Pastor Wilson likes America. In fact, I would say that President Obama has said and done far… Read more »
Jonathan, it’s not that simple. He is not paid all that money primarily because he is talented and hard-working. If that were the case, talented Broadway performers would also earn in the millions. He gets all that money because professional football is huge entertainment in this country, and people have lost their values to the extent that no one questions why an athlete should be paid, not just more but infinitely more, than a neonatal nurse. People are not upset that he is not grateful to the government. I know nobody, even those on the public payroll, who is grateful… Read more »
White Christians adopting non-whites often has terrible results.
Which is hardly surprising, as it’s a perversion of nature and God’s design for families.
Remember Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue? He adopted two black kids, one girl and one boy.
The girl grew up to become a Muslim, and the boy is now a homosexual.
Wow. I’m on board. Things are going to be a lot simpler for me when I join that uni-variate world you inhabit.
Next, let’s get back to 4 elements instead of 100+.
What’s your mailing address? I’d like to send you some literature about our organization.
No need. Send it to Moses. He took some heat for his wife of a different color. He ended up becoming leprous because of it…or something along those lines. But, if that’s not the way the narrative went, maybe it’s the way that it should’ve gone….?
You must be new here.
Nope.
Yeah.
Moses married a black woman.
If you’ll believe that, you’ll believe anything.
His son actually died back in 2011.
Didn’t know that.
Two data points (or more) telling a different tale. By your standard that is overwhelming dis-proof of your thesis, 4aaaK.
Two data points (or more) telling a different tale. By your standard that is overwhelming dis-proof of your thesis, 4aaaK.
LOL
Jesus’s earthly dad adopted God, and that seemed to work out OK!
????????
As Christians go, Jesus is as good as they get!????
LOLOL
And I know two Christian families that adopted children form another “race” and the kids are all thriving well behaved Christians.
LOL
LOLOL
I am not sure he was the easiest man to live with. While not seeing interracial adoption as any kind of perversion of God’s design, I admit it can be fraught with problems. Some adult children of these adoptions talk about the difficulty they have had in establishing personal identity. I think the most serious risk comes when well-intentioned white Christians adopt older African children, not realizing that these children may already be traumatized and suffering from reactive attachment disorder. Nurturing such children is not easy, and love is not always enough. I can’t read about the Hana Williams case… Read more »
I am not sure he was the easiest man to live with.
Actually, in an article his son wrote after he came out, he said that starting at around age 13, he would have his boyfriends over all the time, and they would have sex right in his bedroom, while Randall was downstairs studying the Bible or praying for revival.
If you can have gay sex in your bedroom for years starting at age 13, it seems pretty clear your dad wasn’t exactly a tyrant.
But he threw his daughter out after two unwed pregnancies. Which might be so bad if he had not had an adulterous affair with a church assistant for whom he abandoned his wife and two minor children.
He’s a pig.
White people who adopt non-whites are often freaky in other ways, too.
This nonsense started with Jim Jones, after all.
Did you know he had crossed the Tiber and gone over to Rome? Not one of our most creditable converts. I can’t agree with your statement as it is. But I would say that white people who want to adopt children of another race should be very careful about their motives. Seeing themselves, perhaps unconsciously, as heroic can lead to disaster. Doing it as virtue signalling is also very hard on the children they adopt. That being said, there are interracial adoptions that turn out well, and there are decent people who want only to give a child a better… Read more »
Did you know he had crossed the Tiber and gone over to Rome? Not one of our most creditable converts. I may have been aware of that at one time, but if so, I had forgotten it. I used to think highly of Terry decades ago, back when I still had the fetus fetish. But then he dumped his wife for a woman half her age. And there’s lots of rumors amount financial misdeeds, too. he other case that gives me nightmares involved an Liberian seven-year-old girl who was adopted by an American Christian couple. They beat her to death… Read more »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lydia_Schatz
I am a gentle soul, but this case fills me with rage.
Wow. It’s unlikely that they would have beat their real child that badly. One of the reasons God’s design for creating a family was to combine the father’s seed with the woman’s egg was so that each of them would feel a close kinship to their children, and their NATURAL affection for their children would be strong. That’s why historically, back when America was Christian, couples only adopted children of close relatives who had died. Unnatural affections can never compare to natural affections. No one is going to feel as close to an adopted kid as their real kid, and… Read more »
So what’s your plan for orphaned children who don’t have close relatives in a position to adopt them?
I actually do have a friend who is acting out a plan, but you probably wouldn’t like i.
God adopted wicked people as His Children. Do you feel more disgust for this than you do white people adopting non white people?
God adopted wicked people as His Children.
And where did God tell Christians to adopt kids that are no relation to them by the tens of thousands?
And how did American Christians miss this clear teaching until Rev. Jim Jones rediscovered it?
Didn’t Jesus also slaughter a couple hundred thousand Egyptians in one night?
How come nobody ever says we should emulate that aspect of God?
Where did God tell people to communicate via the internet?
Where did God show partiality to people because of their skin color?
“How come nobody ever says we should emulate that aspect of God?”
Because God is quite clear in commanding us to not take revenge.
Romans 12:19
Don’t let me bring you down.
Remember, you’re just a pilgrim on this earth, a sojourner. You’re only passing through, while you seek a city whose builder and maker is Jim Jones.
But one day soon, you’ll be in your forever home, the New
JerusalemPeople’s Temple Agricultural Project, where the streets are paved with Diversity.http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/in-the-valley-of-the-shadow-of-death-guyana-after-the-jonestown-massacre-19790125
Your self righteousness can only take you so far. Take your racist crap somewhere else because Christ rejects it. He is saving people who have dark skin along with the rest of us.
Revelation 7:9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
Your self righteousness can only take you so far. Take your racist crap somewhere else
When you say these hurtful things about me, it makes Baby Pepe cry.
I was hoping for more of a defense of your racism, but it has no defense. What was I thinking?
I was hoping for more defense of your racism, but it has no defense.
It’s all right here, pal:
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”
Knock yourself out.
You have given up. ok, no problem.
Yes.
You win.
I retract everything.
“How come nobody ever says we should emulate that aspect of God?”
I have heard ‘It’s Gods job to judge people. It’s our job to arrange the meeting’
God adopts people as His children and you think it is beneath white people to adopt white people. You must be purer than God!
You must be purer than God!
Being quite a bit more intelligent than you doesn’t make me “purer than God.”
Ad Hominem attacks don’t make you intelligent.
Tooshay!
Why is everyone constantly saying that this is an example of “White people adopting a child of another race?”
If his adoptive parents had been Black, would they have the same issue with it?
Of course. But, if you research this, you will find some troubling cases of failed adoptions from foreign countries, sometimes resulting in serious abuse of the child. The issue is not whether the adoptive family is black or white. The issue is whether the adoptive family has been adequately prepared to deal with the special needs of a traumatized African child. Hana Williams was starved to death. Lydia Schatz was beaten for seven hours straight, her adoptive mother holding her down while her adoptive father whipped her with plastic tubing until her liver failed. Her offense was pronouncing the word… Read more »
Guess what? That happens in white families too.
White Christians adopting non-whites often has terrible results.
Which is hardly surprising, as it’s a perversion of nature and God’s design for families.
Perversion!? What are you, a kinist? You can’t possibly be serious if you want to be taken seriously.
Perversion!? What are you, a kinist? You can’t possibly be serious if you want to be taken seriously.
No, I’m not a kinist, as I’ve made clear on here repeatedly.
So run along now, Scott.
Run along where, 40? I usually have a lot of respect for you and Jillybean, but these comments sound like the opinions of white folks who have no personal experience, much less understanding of the issue. I have an adopted black child as well as an adopted Asian child. Neither adoption is a perversion, except in your pitiable mind. BTW, I have it on pretty good authority that CSA President Jefferson Davis also adopted a black child during the War of Northern Aggression.
I have an adopted black child as well as an adopted Asian child.
How nice for you.
You’re fulfilling Bible prophecy.
The Bible says that in the last days God would give people over to unnatural affections.
I’m sure Jim Jones would be proud.
I did say that it can work out well, and that people’s motives can be admirable. But there have also been tragedies arising from RAD, and I don’t think it is wrong to bear these in mind. I am far from suggesting that everyone who adopts an African child is likely to beat them to death.
Jill, I’m very familiar with RAD and know that it’s just as prevalent in White on White adoptions as it is in interracial adoptions. I’m just saying that the first thing you mention is a question of their motivation in adopting and whether it is a do-gooder issue of pride. The main thing is people make a big mistake when they argue this issue anecdotally. You cannot say that because some interracial adoptions often lead to RAD, that is a valid reason for not adopting. We have had over a half-dozen White-AA adoptions in our small church of 50 families… Read more »
i can see how it would have sounded that way, and especially the questioning of people’s motives. which was not fair. Blessings to you and all your church’s beautiful children.
He’s pretty openly racist, well beyond mere kinist.
He’s pretty openly racist
It’s true. I’m white. What can I say?
40 Acres, I also know a white couple that adopted a bunch of black kids and they all turned out pretty good. I also know a white family that adopted white kids and they turned out to be psychos. Guess what? Your tendency to confuse anecdotal instances for a broader rule or causal relationship is a sign of a low IQ. The fact is that adoption is a beautiful thing regardless of color. You take a poor infant that needs a home and you clothe them, love them and protect them. No family is perfect. Kids (both adopted and biological)… Read more »
40 acres is a clown car.
> Colin Kaepernick has the absolute right to remain seated for the national anthem,
> without fear of fines, penalties or other forms of undue pressure from the NFL.
Is this actually so? In the logic of freedom, shouldn’t he be free of fear of fines, penalties, etc. from the government, but the NFL or the 49ers be just as free to send him packing if they please?
Yes, I don’t think he was speaking about the NFL, but the government of the U.S.A.
While there is all this discussion on the National Anthem, perhaps patriots should examine the Pledge of Allegiance more closely. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister who was run out of his church for his socialist beliefs. It was written to raise up little state-bots whose allegiance was to be to the federal government. Any time someone refuses to recite it I ask what their motivation is. As for me, I always substitute the word “divisible” for the word “indivisible.” I don’t care if someone sits out the National Anthem or refuses to state the pledge. At… Read more »
Yeah, it took me a long, long time before I realized how weird it was that I once was regularly told by public schoolteachers that I needed to pledge allegiance to the federal government of America.
I’m personally never going to force that on anyone else. As a friend of mine once said, I pledge allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and no other earthly kingdom.
The flag isn’t the federal government. Big distinction.
Also, allegiance to a country can be sincere without being ultimate.
“The flag isn’t the federal government.”
True enough. But that observation doesn’t nullify the Pledge’s nationalist history and original intent.
“What’s Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whats-conservative-about-pledge-allegiance
The question is, does the Pledge still share that historical meaning, or has the cultural understanding of the Pledge changed? I am aware, of course, that there is a good deal of nation-worship running around the States these days – but does the Pledge signify that necessarily?
Incidentally Carson, did you read the Cato article to which I previously linked? It’s entitled “What’s Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?”
I’d rephrase the question to a fellow believer: “What’s biblical about the Pledge of Allegiance?”
“[D]oes the Pledge still share that historical meaning, or has the cultural understanding of the Pledge changed?” Given the emotions roused in many Americans when reciting the pledge (and especially when others choose not to do so), I would argue that the pledge still stands more for nationalism than for patriotism. (See “Patriotism or Nationalism?” by Joseph Sobran, 10/16/01, http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/011016.shtml .) In light of passages such as Daniel 4:35 and Acts 17:26, isn’t it more than a bit arrogant for us to declare our nation to be “indivisible”? (Indeed, isn’t indivisibility an attribute of God alone?) And lastly, isn’t our… Read more »
A Christian with those beliefs would not be in that position since he would not be in the military.
Nationalism and Patriotism are related…and the emotions are roused by patriotism. Said patriotism is the desire to keep the nation whole and under Constitutional protections.
I totally agree. I’ve written letters to the editor of our local paper before Flag Day citing the same facts. The pledge was actually a gimmick to get more copies of the then equivalent of the Weekly Reader sold. Every school that sold to at least 80% of their students got a free flag – that’s why all public schools fly a flag now. Back then less than one-half did. It’s idolatry, pure and simple.
“We never want to be in a position where we honor those men who fight for our freedom, and then vilify other men for exercising it”
Right on, Doug. Michael Savage played a clip of a mother who’s son died in battle, she was irrate about Kaepernick doing the thing her son secured for him to do. Although I was sympathetic toward her, she didn’t quite realize that a man standing in ignorance is his right and we should be happy the government doesn’t make him lie in the grave for it.
Michael “Savage’s” real name is Michael Weiner. He used to go skinny dipping with the homosexual child molester Alan Ginsberg, and for years kept a picture of the two skinny dipping in his wallet, which he showed to everyone. Before he got into the kosher conservative talk radio racket, while he still went by Michael Weiner, he wrote a novel that was a thinly disguised version of his own life. The main character struggled to overcome his homosexual tendencies. Weiner dedicated the book to his wife, saying she “has lived every minute of it.” He’s almost certainly a closeted homosexual,… Read more »
I didn’t think Shep Smith was closeted. I thought he was open about it.
Well, either way, he’s still a homo. And quite a vicious flamer, judging by accounts in the news. A great many homosexuals hate women, but Smith appears to really, really hate women.
If he did come out, it must’ve been fairly recently, and fairly quietly. And he’s been the anchor of Fox News for some 20 years.
I think it was Anderson Cooper who came out, whereas with Shep Smith everybody knows it but he hasn’t said so publicly.
Rachel Held Evans: “The early church would be utterly baffled at the idea that future Christians would shame someone for not swearing allegiance to the empire.”
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually agree with Rachel Held Evans 100%. I think I need to have my head examined.
I’m not so sure about that. Early Christians were living under an empire, they had little choice about who they had to salute. I think the early church would be having a fit if they knew we were living in a Christian country today where our rights are protected and yet we still refused to call out a Muslim convert who tried to shame our country and our flag.
Doug, I realize you have not come at this topic from a religious angle, but rather a cultural one. However the widespread, knee-jerk defense of a sloven adoration of America’s symbols by the Christian church is troubling. Perhaps addressing the nearly brainwashed pseudo-worship of a secular empire would have been more appropriate. The anthem is praise to an empire. The Pledge of Allegiance is our liturgy to an ungodly government. Perhaps we ought to institute mandated genuflection in the presence of our president or crossing oneself as one enters the White House. That Christians would ever mandate by the force… Read more »
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/23/parents-fuming-over-pledge-allegiance-waiver.html
The first quotation I gave from Judge Jackson dealt with this very issue. In Barnette v. West Virginia, Jackson ruled that the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses could not be disciplined because of their religious opposition to reciting the pledge or saluting the flag. It has been settled law since 1942 that no child can be forced to do either if he or his parents have conscientious scruples against it. Every challenge to Barnette has failed. I find it difficult to believe that Todd Starnes doesn’t know this, so I don’t know why he is offended by the waiver.
As dear Judge Robert Jackson said (and I have always hoped I would get a chance to quote him): If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. I’m also pretty fond of We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless… Read more »
With all due respect duly given to the well-written Judge, his logic could use a brush up. Waxing eloquent about the right to touch the heart of the existing order sounds much better than it works. All systems have an untouchable element. The question is really about what is the appropriate untouchable.
In order for the existing order to remain in existence, its most basic foundation must be untouchable. Otherwise, the system has built into it a suicidal complex. This is why blasphemy against Yahweh is a capital offense.
I recall hearing Christian speakers — often at homeschool conventions — cite the fourth verse of the National Anthem as evidence that America was founded as a Christian nation. The fourth verse includes the words: Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.” But in light of the nationalist outrage over Colin Kaepernick’s decision not to stand for the playing of the National Anthem, you may be interested… Read more »
Our white ancestors were vile, despicable apostates!
I hate ’em!
I remember reading about a KKK leader who had a DNA test done and learned he was something like 1/4 black. I would love to learn that you were black too. You would be so confused.
I wonder if you’ve got some eastern Slavic in you. Trigger warning!
I have some very wicked ones. I started doing family history about a decade ago, and my whole family wishes I would stop. The wreckers on the Dorset coast, the ggggg-aunt who was tried for murder, the lunatic in the workhouse. There’s nothing to enliven a dull family dinner like bringing out the skeletons in the closet and making them dance.
Plus, in a hundred years, your descendants will be going on not only about the wreckers on the Dorset coast, the ggggg-aunt who was tried for murder, and the lunatic in the workhouse, but also that one of their ancestors was actually civil to 40 ACRES AND A KARDASHIAN!
In the meantime, I will be content to go on embarrassing my relatives. A video of me was posted on the Internet the other day crusading for California farm workers, and my brother is hiding his head in shame. Never mind that no one has ever seen me actually eat fruit or vegetables.
Unless you change your name again…
Nonsense, Frank. The third does not speak of slaves recruited to fight for the British. It speaks of the servants of the British, be they Hessian mercenaries or anyone else.
Semper fi
There’s no definitive interpretation of that verse – Key never spelled out himself what he meant, and a good number of historians believe he really was referring to slaves, many of which had fought for the British. Francis Scott Key was a slaveowner who wrote that Black people were “a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.” He remained anti-abolition all his life and used his position as D.A. of Washington to fight against the abolitionist movement. Whether or not the third verse refers to slaves, it’s quite… Read more »
Can’t we just switch to America the Beautiful which is much easier to sing?
No! America the Beautiful is sappy; it’s not an anthem for a nation of men (*). Even as a child, the sappiness of that song made me cringe.
(*) granted, America is currently not a nation of men
You have a point, now that I think about it.
It’s also boring: a person could fall asleep while singing that song.
Girls like it. I have liked it ever since I was a little girl in Canada and watched Hayley Mills sing it in Pollyanna. If there was anything I wanted in life, it was to be Hayley Mills or perhaps Pollyanna.
Or Nicky from Moonspinners!
Absolutely! Or Mary from The Trouble with Angels. I am sure it is that movie that made me end up spending three days in a convent thinking I would become a nun!
It will also never fly in a nation that’s 40% nonwhite.
To nonwhites, America “was never great”, so don’t even think about calling it beautiful.
Unless you think centuries of genocide, slavery, and separate restrooms for men and women are something to celebrate.
I’m not so sure. I have friends who came here to escape the civil war in El Salvador and the chaos in Vietnam after the war, and their patriotism is off the charts. A place without roving death squads seems like paradise.
And didn’t black people actually volunteer to fight in WW2 at a time when many weren’t even allowed to vote?
https://g.co/kgs/SOxRvt
Did many actualliy volunteer? Or were they drafted? In either case, I’m sure a lot of Europeans wished they hadn’t, served as a whole bunch of them were hanged for rape and murder while “defending the country they loved.” Emmett Till’s dad was one. He was only in the Army because he almost choked his wife to death, and the judge gave him the option of prison or the Army. In Italy, he raped and killed women, and was hung for it. But the good news is that there are now THREE movies about Emmett Till in the works. That… Read more »
you saying the apple didn’t fall far from the tree? Or perhaps that the apple and the tree were both killed by whitey?
One hundred and twenty-five thousand black Americans served overseas in World War II. Seventy-nine percent of the 141 American soldiers executed in the European theatre for murder and/or rape were black. Even allowing for a whole bunch who might not have been caught, I don’t think the numbers justify us in regarding black World War II veterans as prone to sexual violence. You have a genius for distracting me from my domestic duties and sending me into the cybersphere hunting for facts! My first reaction on reading your post was to wonder if the black American soldiers got the same… Read more »
That Emmett Till’s father was a murderous thug is interesting, but surely you are not suggesting that this tells us anything about Emmett himself
Oh, heck no!
I would never say anything like the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, or there’s any such thing as a chip off the old block, or like father, like son.
That kind of stuff is flat out hateful, and I would NEVER talk that way!
Having a murderous father is a horrible legacy for any child. But, have you noticed that we tend to use those proverbs only in the negative? No one takes for granted that I will be brave like my war-hero father, or saintly like my darling mother.
Really? Isn’t this exactly what people mean by “blood will tell” — e.g. that in a difficult situation you’re most likely to show the behaviours you’ve inherited, whether good or bad?
Yes, but I think we hear it far more often in relation to negative behavior. Of course someone might say that since my father was a champion swimmer, it is not surprising that I am at home in the water. But it is much more likely that someone will say, his dad was a serial adulterer, and the apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
In which case we still have to tease out the genetics from the environment.
But, have you noticed that we tend to use those proverbs only in the negative? No, not at all. The first and last one, I would say the times I’ve heard each used would be about 50/50 positive/negative. But the “chip off the old block” one, I can’t remember ever hearing it being used to refer to negative behaviors. It’s one that’s most commonly used to address either the father or the son, often with the other one present, as a way of both complimenting the son for something while simultaneously pointing out that he likely got the ability from… Read more »
LOL
If we’re taking suggestions how about Yakety Sax?
I had to look that up. Or perhaps Randy Newman, if he is still alive, could rework “I Love LA.”
That reminds me of Cheech and Chongs ‘Born in East LA’. He is still alive, so you might be able to get him onboard with your ‘Only Jills Can Be President’ initiative.
Good. My foreign policy initiatives are clearly laid out in Newman’s “Political Science.”
I assume “Short People” is part of your domestic policy.
I have to take the middle ground on that one. When I was a willowy 5’7″, it was my theme song. Unfortunately, decades of a vitamin-free diet are gradually removing inches from my spine.
Go jillybean, go.
https://youtu.be/kmC1UuBdp20
Given the Slavic devotion to Great Britain by those who had wanted to remain subjects, added to the fact that less than half of the American colonists aided in our secession from the Crown, it is more likely that he was speaking of those unhappy former citizens of Great Britain, and the mercenaries of the Crown.
Semper fi
Be that as it may, I still despise our white American ancestors. They were vile, God-hating scum.
Please, read the linked article — or better yet, the 2014 Harper’s article to which IT links (http://harpers.org/archive/2014/09/washington-is-burning/1/ ) — and get back to me with your objections.
Thanks, but your link didn’t work.
Semper fi
http://harpers.org/archive/2014/09/washington-is-burning/1/
I got it. The consensus is, as you say, that the stanza applies to slaves. But more importantly, it applies to those slaves fighting for the British, at the time a mortal enemy.
Semper fi
The song lauds the land of the free and the home of the brave. Brave slaves risked death to flee their owners and fight against the government whose laws considered them to be mere property. After the end of the war, the British kept their promise to the former slaves who fought for them and relocated them to either Canada or to Trinidad. Think what you will about our mortal enemy … the bravery of those slaves led to their freedom. But as it currently stands, only a mere handful of Americans are still aware of this aspect of the… Read more »
Yep, and they fought bravely for the British, our enemies. Yes, they were property, chattel slaves, common at the time around the world.
The anthem stands as a paean to American liberty. Naturally, I sympathize with any living, former, slaves. All others may thank God their ancestors were brought, however unjustly or brutally, to this continent!
Semper fi
I got it up now. Had to do a search. I’ll get back to you.
Semper fi
It is talking about deserters that were slaves. It is not a celebration of the death of slaves. The death of deserters that were slaves, not slaves that were deserters.
Subtle, but true. But despicable non the less.
Also, it is quite clear that this nation as a whole (The people and the state) has done away with racism that Kap wants to claim is alive and well.
Someone didn’t stand for the anthem??? Trigger warning!
?oh=6a2bd23d5c4621d461d0dfe94d8c2e5a&oe=583E7077
“We are all aware of the fact that if an evangelical QB refused to stand
for the national anthem in protest of Obergefell, the athlete in
question would be destroyed by those who are currently whooping in favor of athletes exercising their right to free speech.”
Now that this situation is on everyone’s mind, why not test that theory?
Incidentally, it’s actually entirely normal for multi-millionaires to be the leaders of the poor and downtrodden. After all, no one actually listens to the poor and downtrodden or cares what they think.
Bingo, bingo.
“…the fact is that a multi-millionaire is making himself the leader of the downtrodden masses…” Clinton and the dems have been doing that for years.
…I am likely not the only one who noticed that.
My problem with Kaepernick is not so much his refusal to stand for the National Anthem as it is with the ideology and motivation behind his protest. I don’t think I’m alone in that.
Which is kind of the point. He is free to not stand (though there are some subtleties here) and should not be forced to. But others are allowed to comment about the protest: whether they agree or disagree. I haven’t really been following this. But distinguishing between you shouldn’t have sat down because it is wrong, and you are wrong about what you are protesting about a important, yet for many people possibly too subtle a distinction. Anti-abortion protesting is often addressed like this. Women should be allowed abortions and you should be allowed to protest near a clinic, or… Read more »
Apparently Kaepernick thinks Clinton should go to jail. So maybe we can all find common ground after all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsAKAOBBGMQ
Apparently, after speaking to a military veteran extensively about the issue, Kaepernick is now taking a knee during the anthem instead of merely kneeling.
The willingness of both these men to dialogue about the issues appears quite mature:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-green-beret-nate-boyer-meets-with-colin-kaepernick-for-a-good-talk/
Less mature is his wearing socks depicting the cops as pigs.
Yeah, but he’s so diverse!
Well, yes. But that was also a private act he did once at a team practice weeks ago before he had ever decided to make a public statement, which virtually no one noticed until people needed to find something to use against him. It was certainly immature, as is bringing it up in a different context in order to try to discredit a completely different act.
(I notice, btw, that gfkdzdds liked your comment. I have not noticed, however, gfkdzdds yet apologizing for trying to taint Kaepernick with the false claim that he had used the N-word in a game two years ago, even though that claim was found to be false by the video evidence, the testimony of the opponent he supposedly said it to, AND the official arbitrator in the case. Apparently, some people are just looking for anything they can to throw at him.)
Well, I think the only person to whom he owes an apology might be Kaepernick, but no one would expect him to track him down to deliver it!
Maybe other people have a different standard, but my personal standard is that if I repeat a lie about anyone in front of a certain audience, I feel morally bound to correct that lie before that same audience and repent of it. On a practical level, I think that correcting the lie in front of the people I had told it to is a much more meaningful act of repentance than anything I say directly to the person the lie was about. If someone lies in public about me, I care a lot more about whether they fix what they’ve… Read more »
The word lie implies that gfkdetc. posted a story he knew to be false. There is no evidence that he knew the story was untrue; nor has he any history here of making knowing false accusations. He reported something he believed to be true; you knew it was untrue, and you corrected it. Repentance should follow a lie. I don’t think we need a full scale public act of contrition for an inaccurate statement that somebody else corrects. I do think your reaction is a maybe bit overblown. Perhaps it would have been gracious for gfkdetc. to have acknowledged your… Read more »
I’m sorry, by using the phrase “repeat a lie” rather than “lied”, I meant to distinguish that I felt that gfkdetc was repeating a lie he had heard, which he did not initially know himself was a lie. However, he does now, which is why I wish he’d say something. I didn’t make a big deal about it at first, I just corrected him. What annoyed me a bit more was after getting corrected, he instead went on to co-sign other attempts to discredit Kaepernick’s character. I would think that after having participated, even accidentally, in spreading a lie about… Read more »
Well, I have reached an age when I don’t mind being considered immature! But a public figure who is on camera much of the time is making public statements even with something as minor as socks. Would you be as tolerant if a vicious, racist homophobic white player were photographed at practice wearing socks that convey a viciously racist message? Would you be as willing to see the choice of socks as completely irrelevant? Or would you say that wearing such socks in a public place indicates something about character, attitude, and maturity?
I see Jonathan completely ignored your question, jilly.
Say, do you think that if someone found an old photo of Donald Trump wearing a pair of socks with rats wearing yarmulkes, or Michelle Obama as a gorilla, Jonathan would say it was a private act, and the worst thing he would say about it was that it was “immature”?
Well, give him more time. It’s only been six minutes!
Oh, I misread a time stamp.
My mistake.Stupid Disqus!I posted a positive comment about a positive story involving two people, one that didn’t pick sides. I (and “A” dad at least) thought it was a great, positive story. And you chose to respond by ignoring the positive, non-partisan story with a negative, unrelated comment that just trashed one of the two people involved. That’s what I considered immature. If the reaction to someone pointing out something positive is to ignore it and find something else negative to try to focus on instead, then we’re going to live in a very ugly world. Maybe too late for that. I… Read more »
I think I was asking if you found the socks insignificant only because you agree with his view that the police are viciously abusive toward black people. He wore them to several practices where they are clearly visible as he stands on the field. I grant that perhaps the public would never have found out about this. I agree with you that wearing socks showing pigs wearing police hats is immature. But I also think it raises questions about his underlying attitudes and his credibility if he is taking a stand for racial justice motivated by nobler ideals than a… Read more »
And my point is that he has a MUCH broader history to look at than merely the socks. I’ve been given the understanding (I haven’t seen them myself) that he has been posting social justice-type things on social media for some time. He has said himself that he has two uncles and several friends who are police officers, and that he doesn’t hate police in general. He is donating $1 million dollars to community groups. He has acquitted himself well in interviews regarding the subject. And then there’s this article. To me, that’s a fairly good body of evidence. With… Read more »
It doesn’t discredit “a completely different act” but is it not possible to discredit the actor himself by showing that his actions don’t necessarily proceed from a stellar character after all?
I don’t think human beings are such that any one act “proves” someone has a stellar character or a corrupt character. Nor do I believe that someone with a poor character cannot act in a decent way some of the time, or vice versa. And, if we’re going to judge, I’d take the 90-minute conversation and the following actions/words/compromises from both sides as a better indication of the men than a picture of socks. But more importantly, when I see a good action, I feel like the most important thing is to call out that action rather than judging the… Read more »
A person certainly can act in a decent way most of the time and do one despicable thing, yes. But it remains that if he does a despicable thing, then he is a person who has done a despicable thing, and it is more than fair to let that color our judgment of him. Yes, everything has to be taken on balance but I don’t think it’s any more fair to discount the despicable nature of the one thing he did, simply because you don’t find other things he’s done despicable. It’s part of the whole, and it’s not like… Read more »
Everything is correct, except that Colin Kaepernick does NOT have the right to sit during the national anthem without fear of repercussions from the NFL. He doesn’t have to fear one of those government Air Force jets strafing him for doing that, but the NFL, being a private business, can do what they want. As you say, though, they won’t.
but the NFL, being a private business, can do what they want. As you say, though, they won’t.
The NFL isn’t doing what it wants by not punishing Kaepernick?
So what do they really want to do?
And who’s forcing them not to do it?
If you’re very familiar with the NFL, they are an extremely money-driven business, and they appear to have little interest in anything that will not make them more money. Kaepernick’s act has proven to be quite unpopular among the NFL’s core fan base, and I think that they would prefer anything possible to make it go away. The main thing keeping them from moving to draconian measures against it, in my guess, is that there are enough players that quietly support him, they’re worried about some of them getting upset and turning it into a much bigger thing if they… Read more »
Which is just a long way of saying that the NFL execs have weighed their options, decided which option appears to be in their best interests financially, and are doing what they want to do.
And that no one has forced them to do anything.
Which was exactly my point.
In contrast with the guy who said they can do what they want, but probably won’t.
And then you come on and argue with me.
By agreeing with me.
I think Demo already answered this well:
“Being forced to venerate something as part of your job duties seems like a pretty bad deal. I don’t think it’s something Christians should be supporting or encouraging, even if it is technically legal.
If my Catholic boss made all of his employees stand and hold out their hands to a statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe as he paraded it by in the morning then I would have to quit. Why should I encourage an employer to make someone venerate the Flag or the anthem.”
With regard to employer rights vs. employee free speech liberties, do you believe Mozilla was justified in forcing Brendan Eich’s resignation over his Proposition 8 donation?
I think it was a bit cowardly, but it’s hard to say where the blame lies. Was the “greater sin” in the ones who fired him, or the in ones who pushed the online shaming campaign that may have caused Mozilla to feel that their hand was forced? I would say it was within “employer rights”, just like the NFL punishing Kaepernick would be within “employer rights”, but I don’t believe is was a good thing. Conor Friedersdorf, a conservative-turned independent/contrarian who I’ve followed for a very long time now, made a good case for how stupid and damaging the… Read more »
It depends in reference to what/whom you’re asserting the right.
He doesn’t have the constitutional right to act without fear of repercussions from his employer, no.
But he may have the moral right to do so. Or, to flip it around, it is arguable (along the lines of what Jonathan refers to below from Demo’s earlier comment) that the NFL does not have the moral right to require him to do it.
Back in the day, actors had “morals clauses” written into their contracts in recognition of the reality that a scandal could be box office poison. Does a business owner whose product is entertainment, and who is therefore dependent on public good will, have a greater right to abridge an employee’s free speech liberty than an ordinary owner?
A whole bunch of people on here (including Doug) would be singing a completely different tune if a rich white athlete had told an interviewer that he doesn’t celebrate MLK day because, in his opinion, MLK was a bisexual adulterer who’s unworthy of honor. Or refused to stand for the anthem until Congress repeals MLK Day on the same grounds.
I think they would defend his free speech rights. But point out his attitude is not Christian! I don’t get the fuss about this guy. I feel a little sorry for him because, when I was 27, I was politically insufferable, easily influenced, and incapable of taking a nuanced view. Nonetheless, I expected my super-conservative father not to be offended when I wore t-shirts with quasi-socialist slogans to the dinner table. But I knew not to carry on like that at work. I think he will face some unpleasant consequences, and I hope he thought the whole thing through before… Read more »
But point out his attitude is not Christian! Um, yeah. To put it mildly. I recently pointed out that Doug loves to go on and on about sin, and repentance, etc., in the abstract, but rarely gets into actual specifics. And I got some flack for having the gall to point out this glaringly obvious fact. But notice that nowhere in this article does Doug say that Kaepernick is right or wrong in his stand. That would never do. If he came down on one side, he would anger some of his readers. Far worse, if he came down on… Read more »
He would approve the act if it were anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage. Where he and I differ is that no matter how important the cause, I still see this as the kind of grandstanding I don’t always want to have to put up with from entertainers. I stopped watching awards ceremonies years ago because I got tired of being admonished by nitwits. I make an exception for Martin Sheen whom I love with all my heart in spite of his dottiness both political and religious. The t-shirt I was wearing the day he hugged me while campaigning with Jesse Jackson… Read more »
He would approve the act if it were anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage. Right. Because (for now, anyway) both the majority of his readers and and nearly all of the Anyabwile/racial reconciliation racket crowd agree on gay marriage and abortion. So he would take a clear and forceful stand, and say Kaepernick was right in that case. Probably, any way. He might conceivably disagree and say that while he appreciated the motive, it was the wrong thing to do. But either way, he would definitely tell us what he thought about the appropriateness of the action. But he didn’t take a… Read more »
He has a kind heart. He actually really does. I also respect his willingness to go to jail, as he has done fairly often, for breaking the law in defense of his beliefs. But I think that really, really liking him might be a girl-thing. And if my first name were Yitzak, I would change it at the first opportunity.
And if my first name were Yitzak, I would change it at the first opportunity.
Except for women taking their husband’s name when they get married, changing your name should not be legal, except in extraordinary circumstances.
Do tell me why.
Because it dishonors your parents?
Because a person shouldn’t be able to live in wickedness and immorality, and then simply move to a different place and change his name to get away from the reputation he has earned?
Because your ethnic/racial/religious background often reveals a lot about a person and it isn’t loving your neighbor to hide it or disguise it?
Why do you think a person should be able to change his name quite easily?
Number one and two reasons are okay, although if your parents give you a frightful Christian name, I don’t see why you have to keep it. If some wingnut calls his kid Mansonia as an act of homage to Charlie, that wingnut doesn’t deserved to be honored. And who actually is shamed anymore for wickedness and immorality? I am not sure about prisoners who want to change their names as they try to begin a new life. The Canadian court did not allow the monster Karla Homolka to change her name, and I can see why. And, I suppose, unless… Read more »
I don’t know much about the history of the legality of changing one’s name. I googled around, but didn’t find much, and don’t feel like spending much time on it. I did find what I think might be one of those rare exceptions. Remember Love Connection, the show back in the 80’s kind of like the Dating Game? Well, one of their contestants was named Robert Fagot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfS328h_7Og I can’t believe he ever went on national TV with that name. Personally, I wouldn’t have done it. Looks like he learned his lesson, though. If you google him, it turns out… Read more »
Oh dear. In Canada you can change your name willy-nilly as long as your intention isn’t to defraud. There may be other restrictions, but that is the primary one. To make it official, you have to post a name change notice in a local newspaper and, of course, get new ID and driver’s license. But, if I want to be unofficial and I am not defrauding anyone, I can change my name to Primrose Path any time I please. The lady who intends to become my husband’s next wife wants me to change my name after the divorce. There are,… Read more »
When people change their names, and what they change it to, is quite revealing of their character. I’d rather let people reveal things about themselves that way than not — it tells me how much I can trust them.
Most people who change their names don’t go around announcing that they’ve done so. So, unless you were acquainted with them previously , how would you know?
The Cato Institute website continues to display (as of this writing) the article “What’s Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?” by Gene Healy, Senior Vice President for Policy at the Cato Institute (the article was originally posted on November 4, 2003). Healy displays all the usual ignorance: (1) He correctly identified Francis Bellamy as a socialist but then explained that Bellamy’s early gesture was dropped because of the rise of “Nazism” (Healy failed to identify Hitler’s movement as SOCIALISM, nor even National Socialist, even after Healy remarked about the socialist Bellamy’s “Nationalist” movement in the USA); (2) Healy wasn’t bright… Read more »