Attaboy, Joe!

When recently asked by Nora O’Donnell on CBS This Morning “[I]f Democrats win the House do you believe that they may move forward with articles of impeachment?” Vice President Biden had this to say: “I hope they don't. I don't think there's a basis for doing that right now. I think we should wait until the (Mueller) report comes out. . . . There are so many things to attend to immediately.”

Finally some sane talk about the Democratic obsession with impeachment, though I think the former VP could have, and wanted to, further, but did not want to alienate the new and enthusiastic crowd of hyper-partisan/Bernieites/pathological-Trump-haters/Hillary-is-a-hawkish-sellout-corporate-shill that now camps in the Democratic Party. What? Is that description too much? It was meant to be.

Anyway, I have a feeling this is what VP Biden really wanted to say (ok, at least it’s what I would have said):

For the love of all that is holy, Democrats, if you really believe President Trump should be removed from office, please, shut TF up about impeachment and focus on the 2020 presidential election! Get off your damn self-righteous soapboxes! Instead, start thinking about nominating a progressive presidential candidate who is not an ideologue, who can be supported by all Democrats, undecided voters, and moderate Republicans, and who knows his way around Congress and can advance a realistic progressive agenda - like, say, me. Then, the Democratic Party and the candidate must develop a sound strategy for winning in the electoral college, instead of just complaining about how antiquated it is, so we don’t have a third repeat in twenty years of winning the popular vote but losing the presidency. Capiche?

No, that was not an endorsement of Joe Biden for president. It is a recognition that this impeachment obsession is getting bad, so bad that every time President Trump does something the first question is “Can we impeach him for that?”

In the midst of the abduction and murder of Jamal Khashoggi (which may evolve into an international crisis that can seriously affect the global market and global balance of power) a couple of news reports emerged that the NSA may have intercepted some communications about Saudi Arabia detaining Jamal Khashoggi and the first thought by many is “Can we impeach President Trump over this?” Talk about missing the big picture!

Though President Trump’s response has been far less than satisfactory, even in the eyes of many fellow Republicans, the United States, its presidents, and Congess have a history of supporting Saudi Arabia, selling them arms, and ignoring human rights violations under their repressive government. Why? Necessity. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest and most stable of the oil exporting countries in the Middle East, and the stability of the Middle East and the flow of oil to US allies and trading partners are necessarily important to the vital interests of the United States. Yes, it’s about oil, out of necessity. This has been true since WWII, and a spoken US policy since the Carter Administration, when “liberal” President Carter, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, stated, “Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

One way we have protected the Middle East from “outside forces” (not including the US, of course) gaining control is by strengthening the military of Saudi Arabia. It has worked.

However, the authoritarian government of Saudi Arabia, its repressive social policies, and its reluctance (or inability) to address terrorist sympathies within the nation, has made current US foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia more and more untenable. Still, Europe, South Korea, and Japan need oil. So does China. While it is true that the US could survive without Saudi Arabian oil, the bigger picture is that the US could not meet the oil needs of its key allies and trading partners, and Russia and China would be glad to both support Saudi Arabia and have more control over the oil market.

So, in the larger, non-partisan scheme of things the disappearance and murder of Mr. Khashoggi is a diplomatic, economic, and security crisis for the US, the EU, and other countries that claim to support human rights, a free press, and due process, yet need to ensure they have adequate access to oil to support their economy, military, and place in the global market. The long shot of impeaching President Trump for this or anything should not even been on the radar.

Yet, it is. Sadly. It is also one off the reasons that I think the Democrats may have a three-peat of winning the popular vote in a presidential election election, and the sentiments of most Americans, yet still be left standing outside the White House looking in.

When did conservatism become incompatible with globalism?

I recently answered a question on Quora “Why Can’t You be a Globalist and a Conservative at the Same Time?” It is reflective of the dualistic thinking in US politics so prevalent today. The answer is quite simple. You can. Choosing one or the ofter is a false dilemma.

Conservatism is not necessarily associated with extreme nationalism nor is it against global military and trade alliances or actively participating in the UN. The anti-globalist sentiment among many conservatives is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is primarily based upon fears about the economy and fears about national security, and in some cases that includes an inordinate fear of terrorism leading to xenophobia.

Traditionally, conservatives and liberals supported global military and trade alliances. The US was a founding member of the UN to promote such cooperation. After WWII and especially after the end of the Cold War, global trade has decreased tensions among nations as they have become more interdependent, thereby lessening the chance of war. Average deaths due to war have been lower over the last three decades then at any point since World War II.

NATO has been an unquestionable success, as ten Eastern European nations that were formerly under the influence of the Soviet Union are now members of NATO and the EU. The role of NATO has changed and will continue to change, but it is still relevant.

Global trade alliances, scoffed at recently by the new breed of anti-globalist conservatives, are both necessary and beneficial. From an economic perspective, many people are anti-globalist because they feel it has cost of the United States jobs. It has in some cases in regard to manufacturing, but it has not adversely affected the US economy in the long run. It is false that the US manufacturing output is lower than ever, as manufacturing per capita has been steadily growing, fueled by automation. Automation is the reason that many jobs have been lost, not simply companies moving overseas. Also, less expensive goods demanded by US consumers are readily available, and would not be without imports, fueling retail and online sales growth and requiring transportation and warehousing. Much of the technology developed to produce those goods was done in the United States. A balance is needed, and that balance comes through global alliances with much less danger and pain to the economy than it does through trade wars. If the US does not participate in these global alliances you can bet China will, and that could be devastating to the US in the global marketplace.

Anti-globalist sentiments have developed among some liberals also, though not for the same reasons and not on the same scale as it has among conservatives. Both conservatives and liberals must think for themselves and examine the history and economics of globalism before they retreat into a shell of nationalistic sentiment that can offer neither security nor prosperity.

I swear. . . .

This blog has not been a particularly well-executed adventure even for what it is, an amateurish dalliance with expressing opinions online while keeping a sense of humor. I started, I stopped. I started again, I stopped. I st. . . . . ., well, you get the picture.

So, I’m starting again, and I swear by my faded Cincinnati Reds t-shirt I will not stop. 

Never was a fan of the Reds. I did like Johnny Bench, though. Great catcher. 

But, with a pattern of failure like mine on this one I don’t see it wise to swear by anything too valuable or sacred like, say, my souvenir turf from the the old Yankees Stadium. Some things are sacred.

What are the kneeler's protesting?

This is a fair question, but the fact is these protests started as one thing and then became another. Many people rallying to both sides don't have a damn clue what it's about. Which is why I took the time to answer this question on Quora, reproduced in part below.

What is all this kneeling during the US national anthem about, what is it protesting?

Fair question. Sorry to say, most of the people in an uproar over it don’t have a damn clue. It takes too much time for them to grasp the details, so it is easier to make it an “us versus them” issue and line up on one side or the other. Politicians love that, as they can use it to fire up their base and to distract people from real issues.

The protest started out as one thing and then became another, but it takes a little time to fully understand that. I give the briefest summary I can below, with references, but first, here is what it is not about:

• It is not about protesting the national anthem.
• It is not about showing disrespect for those in the armed forces.
• It is not about disrespect for the flag or the country, but concerns about issues in a country represented by that flag.

Over a year ago, on August 14, 2017, professional football quarterback Colin Kaepernick sat quietly (he did not kneel at first) as the national anthem was played during a San Francisco 49ers preseason game. He said nothing publicly about it. Nobody noticed. He did it for the next game. Nobody noticed. After the third game, someone noticed and he was asked why. This was his response:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.

At first, I was not thrilled. I always stood during the national anthem with my hand on my heart and facing the flag. I felt I could do that while still acknowledging the failures of my country. I felt these issues should be sorted out in the political and legal systems. However, I definitely supported the right of Colin Kaepernick to freely express his views in peaceful protest. In his situation, I might do the same. After all, I’m white, and I did not grow up in a minority community that suffers a disproportionate amount of arrests, incarcerations, deaths, and longer prison sentences.

Not everybody with the San Francisco 49ers organization was thrilled, but they did recognize his right to peacefully protest by sitting during the national anthem. The team offered this statement:

The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.

That is a concise statement reflecting knowledge of the US Constitution and a reflection of American values, much more enlightened than the response of some politicians.

Kaepernick began kneeling only after meeting with former Green Beret Nate Boyer, who served tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq. SBNation gives this account:

From the time the protest gained attention, Kaepernick reiterated he was not doing it to be anti-American or anti-military or to disrespect troops. He was doing it to bring serious social issues to light and try to evoke change. That stance led to him slightly adjusting the protest. Kaepernick met with former Green Beret and brief NFL long snapper Nate Boyer, and after the discussion decided to shift from sitting to taking a knee during the anthem.

Several other players joined in during the 2016 season to support bringing attention to racism and racial tension as it exists in the United States.

When Kaepernick announced his free agency and was not picked up, it was conjectured that many NFL teams were reluctant to bring the controversy to their teams. In March of this year, Kaepernick stated that he felt the protest had accomplished it’s purpose and he no longer wanted it to be a distraction, so he would stand during the national anthem in 2017. Whether he did this for his career or not does not matter.

After the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA early this August more NFL players began to kneel during the national anthem to call attention to racism and racial injustice. On August 23, Sports Illustrated published a list of over 50 NFL players, both black and white, that had protested during the national anthem up to that point in the season, along with an entire team.

Not all NFL players supported the protests. They did not welcome the distraction. However, the overwhelming majority felt that players definitely had the right to do so and that they should not be penalized by owners for exercising that right. Many of the NFL owners also supported the right of their players to participate in such a protest.

Then, on Friday, August 23, President Trump, at a campaign rally for Republican candidate Luther Strange in Alabama, said this:

Luther and I, and everyone of us in this arena tonight, are unified by the same Great American values. We’re proud of our country. We respect our flag. Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!”

Only, these protestors had made it clear that their purpose was not to disrespect the flag, but to call attention to racial injustice. By totally ignoring that issue and instead making the protest solely about disrespecting the flag, and then using a line from his reality TV show – “You’re fired!” – President Trump riled up his supporters, who quickly lined up on his side of this fabricated issue. Many of his critics automatically lined up on the other side. The end result is a country that is further divided instead of being focused on solving problems and issues. Lately, this issue has made more news than the failure of the Repeal and Replace bill, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the election, or statements by the President about totally destroying North Korea, which seems to have emboldened them.

After the President’s statement, the NFL, many more NFL owners, and many more players came out in support of the protests, kneeling or linking arms in solidarity, and have made statements as to why:

• They are protesting the attempt by President Trump to tell NFL owners how to treat their players.
• They are protesting President Trump’s attempt to silence a player for exercising his right to free speech and peaceful protest.
• They are protesting the attempt by President Trump to divide the NFL and the country.

So, that’s how it started, and that’s how it got to where it is now.

As I mentioned, I was not a particular fan of calling attention to racism by kneeling during the national anthem, but I definitely supported the right to do so. To do anything else would be as un-American as it gets. The statement by our President solidified my support. Peaceful protest is often the only way to get people’s attention. It was one of the methods used to get women the right to vote. It was used during the civil rights movement. It was used by US truckers in 1974 when they stopped hauling and drove to Washington DC to protest rising fuel prices and unfair practices by trucking companies. It was used by some police officers when they turned their backs as President Obama was riding by in order to protest his policies. US veterans have dawned their uniforms to assemble in front of the entrance to V.A. facilities to protest the treatment of Veterans.

Also, while some veterans dislike the protest during the national anthem, some are taking knees during the anthem to support the protester’s right to do so.

  And so it goes. I do not care which side of the issue a person is on. You have every right to express your opinion. However, if you want me to listen to your opinion at least make sure you take the time to get your facts straight so you know what the hell you are talking about. Don’t let any politician trick you into lining up on either side of an issue for their own benefit.

Read this extended statement by Colin Kaepernick made in 2016.