In Laredo the other side of the tracks (from my experience) was just school rivalry stuff. I do remember being bullied by a white kid and a Hispanic kid in the 8th grade at my middle school working together to push me and my friend (a white kid around). But my take was they were football players and we weren't. We were in the band. Race had nothing to do with it. I also recall being involved in a scrap in Rio Grande City in the end zone during a football game! One of our guys (a Hispanic guy) came over to us in the stands (I wasn't in the band anymore) and said so and so's girl friend had been messed with (whatever it was) and he picked out a few of us to go with him to deal with it. I recall being terrified but compliant. We walked over to the concession stand and they saw us coming and it appeared half the stands emptied to greet us in the end zone. We had about seven or eight of us and I'd say we were 50/50 white/Hispanic. One of their guys walked up and smacked one of our guys in the face with a clean roundhouse. I was standing right next to him. My friend stood his ground, a lot of glaring and cussing ensued and we quickly retreated back to our side of the field. In the end, I had friends. Their race didn't matter.
Essentially, Baldwin and Kaepernick are fighting the same issue but taking very different strategies to achieve a solution. Based on other local interviews I've seen with him he claims the protests are helping. Though he won't personally kneel he loathes the argument that they shouldn't protest. Making viewers uncomfortable is helping him get conversations with various groups in an ADD world where the next issue to distract is just around the corner. Kaepernick's message appears to have been moderated or at least refined over the course of his protest. It went from an anti-cop BLM type message to a more moderate social injustice message. By all accounts, Kaep has spent a lot of time off the field working with an donating to non-profits for this issue.
That's good there were no racial tensions. Like I said, when the ethnic majority is overwhelming, there is no threat from my experience. Threat to status, privileges, essentially decision making power within the community, school or alternate organization.
I get what you meant. You were talking about a collective threat to the town's "traditional" values due to racial population parity. Thanks for the clarification.
Unless kneeling somehow prevents 70+% of black children from being raised in single parent households, Kaepernick and his fellow lemmings will never solve the problem.
And almost universally the "effort" is code for "lower your standards". That's what it appears that LAPD did in order to get more minority cops, it what the military does to get women into combat roles, its what universities do to get more minorities into college.
It is a natural instinct to feel that a police force should never lower its standards, and that the most qualified applicant should get each position. But that instinct conflicts with what should be the overarching goal -- having the best possible police force. If a police force were simply the sum of its parts, then having the best officer in each position would yield the best overall police force. But I don't think that's the case. I don't know how LA went about recruiting and hiring more black cops . What I do know is that it has worked. The LAPD has done a fantastic job of reducing violent crime in what is now one of the safest big cities in the US. Link This seems to be attributed to the push towards "community policing", which is best accomplished by a force that at least remotely mirrors the community it is policing. If this means the police department has to hire less-qualified (but still qualified enough) recruits, I'm okay with that.
Fixing inner-city America will take a generation or two. Having a functional police force won't fix everything, but it is a critical step.
What is more apt to occur in many areas is gentrification pushing the problems out to the suburbs. The problem still exists, it just exists somewhere else...
Baldwin has no choice but to say nice things about the protest. He'll be called an Uncle Tom if he doesn't, but I don't think their message is the same. There are fundamental differences. The problem with Käpernick's point is the same thing that's wrong with Trump's point on a lot of things. He has gone out of his way to needlessly offend. The minute he decided to attack or disrespect a national symbol, he lost a lot of people. Getting attention for bad reasons isn't a smart idea of one cares about real change. I haven't followed the NFL in a while (not for political reasons but because of Jerry Jones reasons), so I can't comment on what he has done to moderate his protest, but it's hard to moderate with credibility if you've said or done something patently offensive especially if you haven't apologized for it. If a national figure gets caught going on a n-bomb ridden rant, it's going to be hard for him to moderate his message and claim to be a force for racial healing if he stands by his n-bomb ridden rant. Well, disrespecting the anthem is going to alienate - perhaps not to the same extent as a n-bomb ridden rant, but it will alienate in a similar manner. It has to be answered for if one wants to move on from it or nullify its negative impact.
I've yet to read through this thread ... great one, btw ... Who has the authority to order the Flag to be flown "at -half mast?" It's not me. It's not you. One person has that authority: President of the United States. Last year, that was Obama, Barak H. Right now, that's Trump, Donald J. For the sake of discussion, let's say the prejudice is outright RACISM. You are already holding a seat which separates you from 99% of the rest of the nation ... you play football for a living. Would that NOT avail you to making public statements on these issues without disrespecting one of the Nation's handful of symbols? ... which by the way ALL include UNITY. It's in our nation's name for crying out loud. Boots out.
Who doesn’t have a functioning police department? You would be closer to the truth if you criticized the inner city schools, but nothing comes close to the black culture problem in terms of its negative effects. That culture problem, in part, can be directly tied to government welfare programs, quotas, and b.s. policies such as reaching a “critical mass” of minorities at schools like UT.
Schools, culture, and safety are all overlapping issues. If more families stayed together and communities were safer, schools would be better. If communities were safer and people were better educated, more families would stay together. And if families stayed together and the schools were better, communities would become safer. Addressing one of these issues without addressing all of them (and then some) is doomed to failure. Is inner-city black culture broken? In many ways, yes. But saying this helps nothing. We have to figure out why the culture is broken, and address those whys. That will take decades.
A man who gets paid millions of dollars to play a kid's game gets told what to do by his boss and so he decides: "This must be what slavery was like!
The silly thing about that comment is that it is so broad in it's generality. You and are are property under that definition.
only if said members of that community want it to take decades, and like @iatrogenic said, the "look first to government" welfare programs are facilitating this social issue within the community and slavery is less relevant than contemporary writers using quill/ink.
NJ ... you make a great point about the differences here with "de facto" ... But it's the "de jure" the BLMs are targeting ... unless there's another definition for institutional racism? CK has blasted policy and structure of police forces ... errantly, but nevertheless. So again ... he's not only wrong about his allegation WRT INSTITUTIONAL racism, he's wrong in the chosen method he claims was intended only to bring "awareness." OK ... we are aware. That of which we are aware is probably not what you intended to reveal, but your deed is did and a bunch of other NFLers have blindly followed suit. The law is clear. A person's heart, not so much. And while we have actions which reveal much, the corruptible part of a person isn't quite "forensics" to the task. This also circles back to the social issues of the community and the stark contrast between percentage population composition and the percentage of (aggravated) crime. This cannot be denied as causal to any LEO's execution in doing the job. We have a profile of aggys for crying out loud and it's been very accurate until only this last couple of freshman classes. So, why is it so surprising that race is used in the estimation/detection of crime? It'd be interesting to know if Boyer's conversation with Kape actually suggested/endorsed kneeling for the Anthem. Boyer knows better.
And this is why I've not watched nor tracked nor otherwise participated in any spectating of the NFL for over a year (my Cowboys gear hasn't seen the light of day since this mess began) ... they won't follow their own rules ... and this time, their rules actually MEAN something; maintaining integrity of rendering respect to the very nation which allowed for the birth of that organization: the NFL.
Yes ... and this is bad tactic. But unfortunately in our litigious society we must all work backwards from the hearing and that usually means delay at the time ... as a minimum, if not endangerment. There's already a formidable apparatus which mitigates the bad actions of police ... IA. I know we all are "aware" ... it's in virtually every TV show about cops ... police the police. I'm not suggesting the IA is not needed, but the portrayal is over sampled. I think even any given IA section will agree with that.
And race shouldn't be a factor at all. Performance and leadership. Character and integrity. These matter. skin color does NOT. Isn't this what these very groups have been preaching? But suddenly, we have to have the (X) corps reflect the face of the (X) Pitiful.
Agree with all of that but the one thing missing from the conversation. the one thing always missing from this conversation is any leadership from black people of prominence saying "this is our problem too. It's not just about what was done to us in the past, its about what we are doing to ourselves today."
Yeah, imagine if, say, we had a black President. He or she could really shine as an example of what people from the black community can achieve. Success. Support the police, etc. That would be really neat. Oh, wait....
Not sure what correlation "voters" have to the NFL but here is a Foxnews poll that demonstrates the NFL has shed 18% in favorability since 2013. Of course, this would suggest the NFL is begin to weather the national anthem controversy. There is no mention of what the favorability numbers were in 9/2016 or 9/2017. Could that be why Foxnews decided to make this their lead article?
For the Lawyers out there. I don’t know how far the numbers would have to go down in the NFL before it affects the owners struggle with Payroll. I’m guessing a lot for most but a few don’t have many in their stadium for kick offs so it makes you wonder. But for the sake of furthering the discussion, if that happened and they can’t make payroll and they have players on their team that continues to kneel for the anthem, can the owners sue their players for their money back proving their actions have killed their revenue? I understand they can stop it at anytime if they stand up to them or cut them off the team. But what about all the money already made? They hurt their bosses pocket book with their actions which affects their ability to pay them. Just wondering if they have a claim to get it back.
I certainly hope this isn't the case. It's a very sad day when people care more about their NFL watch party than they do about showing respect for the flag and anthem.
Could they? Sure. Are they apt to prevail on such a claim? Not likely. There are any number of factors that can contribute to declining revenues. The players being idiots is but one of those factors. And since this is civil court, the issues of proportional liability come into play, with a jury likely factoring in the owner's decision not to release the problem children. If they knew of the action and chose not to cut the player for whatever reason (would be portrayed as competitive reasons), then they bear responsibility for some percentage of the losses that might possibly be able to be directly attributed to said idiot player...
T he owners wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win a lawsuit against the players. I think they'd be hard-pressed to put together a theory of liability in the first place. But if they could, they'd face an unbeatable defense based on theories of assumption of risk (for any potential tort claims) or waiver (for any potential contract claims). In both cases, these defenses basically mean that a victim who is injured by someone else's wrongdoing has to take reasonable action to protect him or herself if they want to be able to sue later. The NFL let the players hurt them, and now they can't recover for their injuries in Court.
I care tremendously about our country. I greatly respect the people who sacrifice their comfort and convenience, and often put their lives at risk, to defend the country and what it stands for. I am in favor of better pay and benefits for military members and their families, as well as better support for veterans and their families. I am sometimes (but not often enough, I'll admit) outspoken in defense of the military or its members when they are unjustly criticized. I am just as pro-America as the proudest flag-waiver out there. But as to the symbols of patriotism, like flag and anthem? Meh. I'm fiercely proud of the fact that the flag and anthem are available for anyone to use for any purpose, whether that may be waiving it with pride at a parade, or burning it at an anti-America rally.
