Making It Respectable To Hate America

Since Trump, hating all things American has become the latest "cause-celeb" . Not even during the turbulent 50's, 60's, and 70's has the hatred of America been so visceral; so palpable. None of this would be possible without the support and encouragement of the media, and that means without the accomplice of the six corporations which own the 96%+ of all media, promulgating their own agendas.  

Today, athletes kneel during the national anthem or otherwise disrespecting the anthem which has filtered down from pro sports to high school and Pop Warner. They, in turn, get upset with fans when we boo and jeer them or boycott the games.  It's not necessarily because we disagree with their politics, but rather for forcing us to indirectly participate in their protest.

Games are played for our enjoyment and paid for with our dollars, which also pays their multi-million dollar salaries. We didn't buy an overpriced tickets or tune in for a political event. We're there to watch a sporting event and to be entertained. That's what sports ultimately are---entertainment. If they want to express themselves politically, do it on their own time, not ours. How about off season?

Actors and athletes spout off their opinions on topics they have little or any real understanding of. Nevertheless, the media treats it as gospel. Millennials and Gen Z often mimic what they see without considering the full effect of an issue. That's what happens when you live in a bubble. It's not to say there aren't a few who actually take the time to research the topic they want to talk about first., but those individuals are rare and far between.

Lately, we've starting hearing form a small group of athletes and mediocre celebrities demanding that the flag and National Anthem be changed because both represent slavery. It takes a pretty misinformed mind to make the leap from the National Anthem, which was written at the Battle of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812, to slavery.  

As for the flag, in what way does it have any connection with slavery? The stars represent the states. The symbol of the star was chosen since it represents the heavens and divine protection. The 13 stripes represent the original 13 colonies. The red symbolizes the bloodshed by those who fought for this country. The white stands for purity and truth, while the blue represents justice.  Maybe they should step out of their echo chambers. Better yet, read a book or take a history class.  

The media calls protests which involve looting, arson, assaults, and wanton destruction of property "peaceful" and "organized" when it done by BLM or Antifa which are  anything but! Meanwhile, they call the protest of the Capitol on January 6th an "insurrection" or "attempted coup" without having the vaguest idea what an insurrection or coup attempt would look like simply because these were individuals on the Right who supported Trump. 

Personalities in Congress, ran away like a bunch of scared mice, only later claiming they were there, willing to "stand and fight" when in reality they were hiding behind locked doors and quivering under their desks like frightened rabbits. Meanwhile, AOC tells the media how afraid she was when, in fact, she was blocks away in a very safe and secure location.

To make matters worse, we're giving individuals who are blatantly racist air time and acting as if this is perfectly acceptable in the name of political correctness. They talk about "systematic white racism" and "white privilege" as if such nonsense actually exists. I'm not aware of any privilege. I've worked my butt off all my life. I paid for college by serving in the military (and ended up a disabled vet for my efforts). I've worked two jobs and made a lot of sacrifices to get where I wanted to be. I can say too,  that my race, and perhaps gender, likely cost me a job.

Everyone I know, regardless of their race or other identifier, put in the effort to get where they are in life. Now, perhaps, there are those at the upper tier of the economic spectrum getting some sort of systematic privilege, but I doubt it's because of their race and has more to do with good old fashion cronyism and class privilege., not to mention writing the laws which benefit them and those like them.

I don't hear anyone discussing how other groups, be it Hispanics or Asians, who've come to America, often with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, unfamiliar with the language, customs, or culture, and within a few years are relatively successful. 

Why is that? Is it because culturally they put a premium on education? Is it because of their work ethic; that they'll take any job and put in the hours? Is it because, for them, being on the public dole is seen as a social stigma? That's what most of our ancestors who came here did.  Instead, I hear about "repartitions" based on what happened to someone else almost two hundred years ago. 

What if there was some sort of financial reparations and if fails as did the "War on Poverty" of the 1960's? Then what? Who will be blamed? Without a strong desire to succeed, which first requires an educational foundation and a strong work ethic, few, if any, will see their economic standing substantially improve. Hope without effort will only lead to failure, and ultimately to despair and anger. 

To make matters scarier, some are now calling whites "parasites", a "disease" equivalent with a plague which automatically discriminates against non-whites, or an infestation which needs to be eliminated.  In addition, they are "demanding" that assets, like houses, cars, property, etc  be turned over to waiting black families when they die. These are the same terms that the Nazis used in talking about the Jews, and we all know how that turned out! They are also reflective of what's happened in places like South Africa or Zimbabwe. This is not the America anyone should want. 

Now, let's be honest for a moment.  Much of what I'm saying is what most of you wish you could say. I know it. You know it. So, why am I saying it? The answer is because we need an honest and open national conversation not just about race, gender, or social class, but what is expected of us as a society.

Although the intentions were good, I think America lost track of what it was all about starting in the 1960's, when we created legislation designed to lift the poorest among us out of poverty but instead broke up families; forcing males away from the families they created. We encouraged individuals not to work by providing them with more incentives to remain on public handouts than to work. In effect, we removed many of the opportunities they had to move up the social ladder.

As a society, we allowed a subculture to develop out of this which discouraged education; where "being smart" was the equivalent of "acting white"  which often resulted in ridicule, being ostracized, or assaulted.  This same sub-culture also gave them an economic way out--through drugs and crime where, in the worst case scenario, they would go to prison where, again, the system would take care of them, not to mention living off the social safety net which was intended to be temporary.

 While we need a social safety net, it must be aimed at providing a helping hand up, not becoming a lifestyle choice. Education is the key to success, but so is a stable family unit. That means legislation which promotes rebuilding the family unit; to make it economically worthwhile to remain together. It doesn't take a village. It takes a mom and dad committed to making it work and raising their kids right.

We need to stop giving these so-called celebrities and athletes more credit than their due. Hollywood is a fantasy land. They make a living playing make believe. I'm sure some are actually intelligent and informed; some, but far from all. They also live in world where they are paid millions. Very few would be willing to practice what they preach to the rest of us.  The same argument can be made for athletes.

Both groups can have a greater impact by giving some of their millions to specific charities as well as doing commercials or special appearances...but on their own time, not ours. Movies, TV, music, and even sports are entertainment businesses. We are there to be entertained, not lectured, especially on our own dollar.

There is nothing wrong with any media or organization catering to a specific group. It's called marketing. However, to tell one group that not only can they not do the same thing, but that they have to "share" with other groups who are afforded exclusivity is wrong. If there's a Miss Asian America, a Miss Native America, Miss Black America, or a Miss Latina (and there are), plus an all inclusive Miss America, but not a Miss European America, isn't that too discrimination? Then again, why should we have a "beauty" pageant at all? Isn't that a form of sexual exploitation? 

If there are magazines like Jet or Ebony aimed at black readers, then why not all racial or ethnic groups without exception? Same goes with movie and music genres or networks and radio stations. If there can be a BET or Telemundo network, why not a WET? If there can be professional and fraternal associations which cater to one group or another based on race (and there are many), then why are whites excluded? Should groups like these even exist? 

If there are scholarships or grants based on race or other demographics, then why not all races and demographics? For that matter, maybe scholarships and grants should be exclusively based on need and academic performance.  The same applies to academic majors.Why are there Hispanic, African, Feminist, and gay majors but not a European/white major? There aren't any professional or civic associations based on my race or orientation, yet there are such associations dedicated exclusively to other groups. Personally, I would eliminate most of these qualifications across the board, but that's not "PC". In fact, none of this is. 

If there is Black Heritage Month (February), Asian Pacific Heritage Month (May), Hispanic Heritage Month (Sept 15--Oct 15), an Arab American Heritage Month (April), or Gay Pride Month (June), why isn't there a European Heritage Month? Or Traditional American Family Month? If you allow for one, shouldn't you allow for all? Isn't that what we mean when we say "equality"?

As an aside, white males are an official minority in this country according to the Census Bureau. Within the next ten years, America will no longer have a majority race society. It will be virtually equal between Hispanics and whites followed by blacks and Asians (Asians will outpace blacks in some areas and may, within the next 25 years, surpass them altogether). So, if we're going for equality under the law, then it has to apply to everyone, not just one group or another even if one is no longer a majority.

The crux of our racial and other manufactured problems, as I see it, are this. We've permitted ourselves (perhaps unwittingly) to be divided, be it racially, class, gender, religious, political, or sexual orientation. We've allowed government to take away our self-respect and responsibility for our own successes or failures---"You didn't build that" (Obama). That has created universal resentment; a sense of "us vs. them" mentality. 

That will ultimately create a balkanized America, which, for the Oligarchs now in control, will make it that much easier to dominate and manipulate us until we're nothing but puppets. We must stop defining ourselves as hyphenated Americans and simply as Americans. A slight against one America should be a slight against all Americans. 

We cannot and must not pigeonhole ourselves based on all these artificial divisions which are tearing this nation apart. Meanwhile, though it may sound cliché, the Golden Rule---"so unto others as you would have them do unto you"---is still a pretty good guide to living together don't you think?

Kneeling during the anthem? Americans opinions have shiftedover the years, polls show

Zimbabwe's white farmers: Who will pay compensation?

The growing fight in South Africa over land and identity

Zimbabwe asks exiled white farmers to return home meets withskepticism

The Polarization of Politics and Sports

Gwen Berry, the hammer throwing Olympian hopeful, recently drew some unwelcome attention to herself at the Tokyo Olympics trials in Eugene Washington, aside from her third place finish.  

During the playing of the National Anthem, the Missouri native turned her back on the flag, covered her head with a black "Activist Athlete"  shirt and display what can only be term as a "pissed off" expression and matching body language. Meanwhile, her two fellow athletes displayed a much more appropriate decorum which one expects from professional athletes. 

This isn't the first time Ms. Berry displayed a lack of professionalism. In the 2019 Pan American Games, Ms. Berry, who had won a gold medal, displayed a "Black Power" raised fist during the playing of the anthem reminisce of gold medal winner Tommie Smith and the bronze medal winner, John Carlos, at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City (they each wore a black and black socks to signify  black power and black poverty).

According to Ms. Berry, the National Anthem contains references to slavery. In addition, she insisted that she wasn't there to represent America, but to represent "those who died due to systematic racism" (and here I thought it was an honor and privilege to go to the Olympics to represent your country. Silly me).

There have been similar protests over the years, when athletes made political statements. Perhaps the most famous of all was Spartacus, the Thracian gladiator, who led a revolt against actual cruelty and dehumanization of Rome's economic and slave systems. Leading just 80 fellow gladiators, his ranks soon swelled to thousands as runaway slaves and those from Rome's lower class joined his cause.

For three years, they gave Rome all it could handle before finally being defeated by generals Pompey the Great and Crassus, the richest man in Rome. The survivors, an estimated 6000, were crucified along the Appian Way to the gates of Rome itself. For those who witnessed Rome's retribution, it must have overwhelmed the senses--the sight, sounds, and smell of the dead, dying, and those soon to be joining them.   Never again was there a revolt like this in Rome's history.

In more recent times, the great baseball player, Jackie Robinson, said, shortly before his death in 1972, that he could not bring himself to stand and sing the National Anthem as he had 20 years earlier; this, after becoming the first professional black player in Major League Baseball. 

During his ten year career, Jackie Robinson won the "Rookie of the Year Award" in 1947; was "All Star" from 1949 to 1954; won the "Most Valuable Player Award" in 1949; played in six World Series games, and contributed to the Brooklyn Dodger's World Series win in 1955. Despite all this, Jackie Robinson felt that he was only accepted so long as he won, otherwise, he was just a "Negro athlete". As an aside, it's worth nothing that Jackie Robinson also served in the U.S. Army during WWII as a Second Lieutenant.

Another black athlete of that time, Jesse Owens, won gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, competing not just against the world's best, but against Hitler's so-called superior "Aryan" super athletes.  Owens, who won four gold medals, felt that he was better treated by some of his competitors than by his fellow athletes and coaches. Even the accommodations for Owns and  teammate, Cornelius Johnson (also black) were equal to that of every other athlete competing.

The German shoe company, Adi Dassler (which became Addis) provided Owens and Johnson with special track and field shoes which enhanced his performance on the field. Leni Riefenstahl, the German actress, producer, and director, made sure Owens was included in her award winning film, "Olympiad" (Riefenstahl was also an impressive athlete herself).

It's worth noting that Owens disapproved of Tommie Smith's and John Carlos' "Black Power" salute. He said "the black fist is a meaningless symbol. When you open it, you have nothing but weak, empty fingers. The only time the black fist has significance is when there's money inside. That's where the power lies".  Owens also said that the Olympics was a break from war and should be above politics.

Boxing great, Joe Louis (aka "The Brown Bomber"), achieved hero worship status across racial lines, not just nationally, but globally, when he knocked out Germany's Max Schmeling in his second fight with the German legend in 1938. He was also key to integrating professional golf in 1952. Louis won 66 of his 69 fights; 52 of those by knockout. Impressive by any measure.

In 1934, he won the National Golden Gloves, the Chicago Golden Gloves, and U.S. National Championship. Not bad considering that his parents, both sharecroppers, were children of former slaves (his mother was also half Cherokee). Louis, who was born in rural Alabama, was also one of eight children and suffered from a speech impediment. As an aside, his father was committed to mental institution when Joe was just two years old.

Never known to back down from a fight, Joe Louis volunteer for the Army at the outset of WWII along with another boxing great, "Sugar Ray" Robinson. Instead, of being sent into combat, both were assigned to the Special Services Division (which also included a number of movies stars, celebrities, and performers like Glenn Miller and Mickey Rooney ) to help with the war effort by encouraging enlistment (especially among the black community) and buying war bonds. During his stent, he travelled over 22,000 miles and put on 96 boxing exhibitions. In 1945, he was awarded the Legion of Merit.

Louis never approved of politics of any sort in sports. When he died in 1981, President Ronald Reagan said "Joe Louis was more than a sports legend---his career was an indictment of racial bigotry and a source of pride and inspiration to millions of white and black people around the world".  In fact, his former opponent, Max Schmeling, not only served as a pallbearers, he also paid for Louis' funeral.

San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick won distain and condemnation from fans when he introduced kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem, which ultimately spread to many of teams (in a few instances, even coaches participated). As a result, teams, the NFL, and television networks lost millions in ticket sales, merchandising, and viewership as fans boycotted the games.

Starting in 2016, Kaepernick remained seated during the National Anthem to protest what he saw as "racial injustice" and "systematic racial oppression". To cut financial losses, Kaepernick was let go by the 49ers, and despite rumors of a return, remains unsigned (don't feel too sad for him. As of 2021, he was estimated to have a net worth of $20 million dollars according to the site "Celebrity Net Worth").

 Nevertheless, his protest spread to colleges, high schools, and "Pop" Warner league sports. In some instances, the playing of the national Anthem was suspended, which often led to impromptu singing of anthem by fans in attendance. As expected, attendance at games declined as did participation, and donations from sponsors, alumni, and parents.

However, none stand out any more than the self proclaimed "Greatest of All Time", Muhammad Ali (born Cassius Clay); better known at the time as "the Mouth from the South". Ali's fame (or notoriety) outside the ring came when in 1966 when he announced that he refused to be drafted (and, presumably, sent to Vietnam, though not necessarily), citing his religious beliefs and moral conviction.

Ali proclaimed himself a "conscientious objector", yet his explanation, belying a racial undertone, when he said "Man, I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong". He added "Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?". 

 There are stories about whether Cassius Clay, which was as Ali's birth name, tossing his Olympic gold medal, which he had just won in Rome, into the Ohio River over a alleged racial incident shortly after he returned home in 1960. As one story goes, Clay wanted to make a point, so he walked into a unnamed "white only restaurant", proudly wearing his gold medal, and asked to be served.

Given the "Jim Crow" laws of the time, he was refused and asked to leave. Angry, he walked over to the Second Street Bridge and threw the medal into the river. The stories surrounding what actually happened have changed over the years, with Ali even admitting at one point that he simply lost it during a move. The Olympic Committee later replaced the gold medal in 1996.                         

Though he would go on to win titles and become a legend in not just boxing, but in sports in general, was considered an "Ambassador to the World" and a Humanitarian. The black community saw in Ali a thorn to the "white establishment".  Many saw him as a "black man" willing to fight for what he believed, especially when it came to race and equality while others (including veteran minorities) expressed disappointment, citing his unwillingness to fight for a country which had given him much. Like him or hate him, Ali had the class and professionalism to keep his politics out of the sport he loved.

Balancing political expression and sports is a delicate matter. Corporations often pay these celebrity athletes many times more than they receive from their inflated multi-million dollars contracts. However, these same corporations, as well as players, their teams, and the league they play for can take a serious financial hit when these same athletes make unpopular political statements or get in trouble with the law.

Nevertheless, most Americans have no problem with athletes making political statements, even ones they disagree with. However, they need to do it on their own time, not the fans. People attend or tune in to sporting events for the enjoyment of the sport, not to be lectured or watch a political commercial on their time. If athletes want to be political, do it during the off season or before game or after game day. 

Ms. Berry was there to proved she was among the best America had to offer and to represent this country.  She was not there to air her political laundry to the world, nor to take attention away from the success of her teammates, DeAnna Price and Brooke Anderson, who won gold and silver respectively. This is twice she has done this. She knew better, and thus needs to be replaced.  If athletes want to be activists, then do it on their own time, not ours.

 

U.S. Olympian Turns Away From Flag, Covers her Head duringAnthem

Gwen Berry responds to critics of her flag protest: "I never said I hated the country"

Wikipedia: Gwen Berry

 

The NFL and Racism: Changing The Tune and Paying the Piper

The NFL has, for the last two years, done little to prohibit players from kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem. A sign of disrespect by most Americans. The result was more than just fans booing but a dramatic drop in game day attendance, team merchandise sales, and a huge loss in TV viewership. The solution for the networks was to stop showing the National Anthem in the hopes that viewers would return. The results have been mixed with the NFL, the teams, and the networks losing billions while long time fans have found life outside of football and other professional sports.

Now, on the heels of the COVID-19 virus which has already cost professional sports multi-billions of dollars, the NFL has decided to cut their proverbial wrists. They've decided to play a so-called "black national anthem" at the start of every Week One game; preceding our National Anthem. They are encouraging everyone---players, coaches, owners, and fans---to stand for the black national anthem, while kneeling for America's National Anthem. The lunacy is mind-blowing. This move will cost them huge swaths of fans, some forever, and more revenue than they can imagine.

Meanwhile, just to drive home the point of how out of touch many of these individuals have become, from the players and coaches, to the owners, player's union, to the President of the NFL, Roger Goodell, let's consider this. There are now mounting "demands" that some of the teams change their name and logo (and not just the Washington Redskins) which they claim are demeaning.

The majority of those complaining include groups on the Left who've started applying pressure not just on the NFL leadership or the owners, but on corporate sponsors like Nike, PepsiCo, and FedEx, making the "Redskins" name change solely a financial based decision and based on the opinion of Native Americans.

Polls conducted of Native Americans found that many weren't "offended" by the Washington "Redskin" team name or logo. Some felt it was intended to honor Native Americans. As an aside, it was a Native America who designed the logo. In 1971, Walter "Blackie" Wetzel, a member of the Blackfoot Tribe, came up with the logo, which his grandson, Lance, said brought a sense of Native pride. Wetzel grew up on the Blackfoot Reservation in Montana, and eventually became president of the National Congress of American Indians.

Lance went on to say that not only was his family upset by the change, so were members of the Blackfoot Nation and other tribes. He added that over the years the team brought in tribal singers and dancers, and incorporated Native American imagery onto team merchandize and advertising, which helped the tribe. Another classic example of Native Americans getting the short end of the stick...again?

So what do you do when you're dead wrong? Simply, you keep trying to get the result you want. So far that hasn't happened. I'm sure that at some point it will. They may eventually get the results they want or find some individual to use as their "proof". Maybe they'll interest Elizabeth Warren. I hear she has between 1/32 and 1/1024 Cherokee ancestry.

That just seems to be the way things are today doesn't it? Ignore what the people while continuing to push your agenda in a media echo chamber until everyone either tires of it and gives in or until someone else comes along with another issue who is louder than you are. Everyone (well, most everyone) these days is scared of being called some name like "racist", "privileged" or whatever. We can't seem to even agree to disagree and go with our lives. So, if we're to play this absurdity all the way out, what do you think we'd end up with? Let's consider some possibilities shall we, beginning with the NFL?

Okay, we have to face the face the owners of the Washington Redskins are caving to BLM and a minority of others and will change the team name and logo. A few suggestions I've seen are the "Red Tails" after the Tuskegee airmen's 99th Fighter Squadron of World War II. Some have recommended "Warriors" which provides a slight nod to Native Americans. Some more "creative" suggestions have included the Washington "Wussies" or "Grovelers", not to mention a few more colorful examples!

Of course, if the "Redskins" nickname is offensive, then we need to consider other team names like the Kansas City "Chiefs" (the term "Chief" is seen as being derogatory unless aptly deserved. Much like calling a black man "boy"), the Buffalo Bills (Buffalo Bill is now labeled a "racist"). The Dallas "Cowboys", Houston "Texans", and San Francisco "49ers" are all obvious. Their nicknames are references to groups who participated in the stealing of Native American land, so they have to go.

We have the "Raiders", "Vikings", and "Buccaneers" which could infer plunder and pillage, and of course, the slave trade which pirates of all sorts actively engaged in. Naturally we can't forget the New England "Patriots" which is blatant reference to old rich slave owning white men. If any go, it has to be that one! Green Bay's nickname, the "Packers" was for Acme Packing Company (formerly the Indian Packing Company), a meat processing business in Green Bay, Wisconsin. That might be offensive to vegans.

The Pittsburgh "Steelers", formerly the "Pirates", changed their name as a nod to the steel industry, then a major regional employer. They many want to rethink that one. After all, steel production creates a lot of air and water pollution, not to mention land destruction through ore mining. The pollution it puts out includes ammonia, cyanide, and naphthalene; all of which are highly toxic and cancer causing. I can see environmentalists getting bent out of shape if they realized the connection.

Most of the remaining nicknames pertain to animals, such as dolphins, eagles, and tigers. It would be a stretch, but a good argument could be made by some zealot that the images encourage the eradication of these animals through fishing, hunting, or captivity. Of course, it could be argued too that the use of these nicknames and symbols bring awareness to their plight. So, I'll leave these alone.

Nevertheless, out of the 32 professional NFL football teams, at least ten need to change their team nicknames and logos. After all, if a name and logo designed by a Native American and seen as a source of pride for Native Americans is seen as "offensive" by a small minority of rich individuals who aren't Native Americans, then there's no reason these other names and logos should be left intact is there?

While we're at it, let's look at professional baseball. The most obvious are the Cleveland "Indians" and Atlanta "Braves". No brainer. They're right up there with the "Redskins" and "Chiefs". They have to go. The San Diego "Padres" and Los Angeles "Angels" (not to mention the New Orleans "Saints") nicknames are offensive to atheists and agnostics (or not). They've need to go. The Texas "Rangers" are named after obvious wild west racist police officers. The San Antonio "Spurs" are, once more, about cowboys and land theft from Native Americans. The Milwaukee "Brewers" name was due to the German immigrants and breweries which sprung up in the region. So, because of Hitler, the Nazis, and all, that name has to be changed too.

The New York "Yankees" gotta go. These New England sailors were known for hunting whales, seals, and dolphins and for shipping slaves (that is, before 1808 when it was outlawed). Same argument for the Seattle "Mariners" and Los Angeles "Clippers". The "Clippers" also transported miners, settlers and cargo from the West Coast up to Native American Alaska and to Asia (mainly China), and returned with a lot of Chinese passengers, so that may need to be looked at.

The Pittsburgh "Pirates" fall into the same category as the "Vikings" and "Raiders" mentioned earlier. Some names which I'm sure the Left won't object to are the Los Angeles "Dodgers", Cincinnati "Reds" or Boston "Red Socks". As for the rest, they're a hodgepodge of animal, geographic, and random names which are open to interpretation.

Although I'm not a professional basketball fan (or a fan of college sports in general), a few team nicknames come to mind for immediate change. First is the Boston "Celtics" with its little leprechaun mascot. An insult to Irish everywhere, though it may not count since the Irish are historically white and thus automatically "racist". However, in their defense, many were sold as slaves by the British and Arabs. They were also the first indentured servants in America starting in 1607 at Jamestown.

The Philadelphia "76ers" is a reference to the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence, which was signed in Philadelphia in 1776. Again, old rich white men; many of whom owned slaves. This falls into the "no brainer" category as well. The Washington "Wizards", Orlando "Magic" and the Washington "Mystics" of the WNBA are obviously encouraging witchcraft and Satan worship. No need to say more.

The Golden State "Warriors" seem to be a positive wink at Native Americans. About the only ones who might object to that nickname are peace loving groups like Antifa. The Utah "Jazz" is kind of iffy. It could be considered an appropriation of black music, and thus culture, or it could be viewed as a recognition of it. Either way, a portion of all team sales needs to go to a fund for alleged "reparations" post haste.

As for the remaining team nicknames, most seem pretty harmless; names like "Knicks", "Nets", and "Thunder". But like anything, they can be made into something they're not and never were intended to be, much like the Washington "Redskins" nickname.

None of the names used by these professional sports teams were ever intended to offend or otherwise injury anyone or any group in anyway. More often than not, they were intended to celebrate those whom their teams were named after. Be it hard working blue collar men and women in the food processing or steel industries, or the courage and bravery of Native Americans, or sense of adventure and toughness of seafaring mariners, the Irish or Vikings.

The Native Americans didn't ask for Washington's owners to change anything. It was mostly a small group of overpaid loudmouth individuals. Lastly, but no less importantly, the playing of any anthem before that of the Star Spangled Banner---a song dedicated to the unity of every man, woman, and child in this country irrespective of their race, religion, origin, ethnic group, gender or any other factor---is a slap in the face of the American People and everything good this nation represents.

It's more deeply an insult to all those millions of men and women of all races who gave their lives for this country along with all my fellow disabled veterans. It disrespects the first responders of this country of all races, genders, orientation, and religion who come to our aid without regard to any other factor except our need. They put themselves in harm's way for our protection. Yes, there are a few "bad apples", but show me a group where there aren't. Nevertheless, the good far outweighs the bad. For this, you put nothing before it and you show your respect by standing for it.





9 in 10 Native Americans aren't offended by Redskins name



Warren Releases DNA Results, Challenges Trump Over Native American Ancestry



Wokism Erases Native American Who Designed the Redskins Logo



The World Counts: Steel Production


Indentured Servitude in British America

Sports in Transition: Transgendered Athletics and Fairness in Competition

I'm not a huge sports fan to be honest, but what I like, I like a lot. I'm talking about weight and powering lifting, the Highland Games, professional football, the World Strongman competition, the Spartan Games, professional boxing, MMA, the CrossFit Games, kickboxing, American Ninja Warrior, and, well, you get the picture. I played sports when I was younger and still enjoy lifting weights when I have the time. I think sports, or for that matter, physical activity of any sorts is good not just for the body but for the mind and spirit as well. Of course, when it comes to school, sports should never be allowed to trump academics in my opinion.

I also want to address the changes in gender identification and how it's affecting sports. First of all, despite the rantings of the Far Left, there are not 58 different sexes, be it pansexual, transsexual, omnisexual, or whatever else (some actually list as many as 63 different gender choices). There are only two genders. You're either a male or a female. You either carry the Y-DNA or you carry the mtDNA. Everything else is between your ears not your legs. You're free to pretend to be whoever or whatever you want. You are free to have a hormone therapy and "transition" from one gender to another. You can go the whole route and have a complete sex change if that's what you want.

However, you will not change the fact that your basic body chemistry doesn't change, at least not without drugs. You will still produce naturally either testosterone or estrogen; drugs can help suppress one and promote the other. You will not alter your bone structure (ie: wide hips vs wide shoulders) all that much or the fact that males are typically taller than females. You also will not change the your muscle fiber or the fact that males have naturally stronger upper body strength while females tend to be a little faster. Nevertheless, no matter what you do, you will still either be a Y-DNA or a mtDNA carrier and that will never change. So, what's this have to do with sports?

Simply this. We are seeing more transgendered males competing against females in sports. As a result, these former male athletes are starting to dominate their natural female opponents. Even in areas where females should do well, such as track and field, their ex-male competitors are edging out their female counterparts because they are taller and have longer strides. In sports like wrestling, MMA, and boxing, they are pummeling their female counterparts thanks to their natural upper body strength. Thus, I have to wonder if allowing "transitioned" athletes to compete against natural females is a fair contest? Can a natural female athlete compete on the same level as someone who used to be male? It's one thing to change physical appearance, but can it change inherit difference in size or muscle strength?

If women could compete with men on the same athletic footing, such as weightlifting or powerlifting, then why is it necessary that there has to be two separate divisions with completely different weight requirements based on gender? Why is there a women's field hockey team and why can't males play on it? The fact is that there are basic differences between the two genders. Could a transgendered female athlete ever expect to compete in the NFL as a defensive linebacker or offensive lineman on the same level as her male teammates? I don't know, but I don't think so. Perhaps in junior high school or maybe high school, but that's about it. Under most circumstances, these differences complement each other, which is how it should be in my opinion. However, when in direct competition with each other, there are going to be unfair advantages to one or the other.

At this point, I think female athletes should seriously consider boycotting matches or events when faced with a former male opponent, and male athletes should do likewise when matched with "transitioned" females (the same goes with those who simply "self-identify" as the opposite sex). If this would happen, sports associations and event sponsors would face a decline in competitors as well as a decline in attendance, which translates to a decline in revenue. The time have come where athletes should not just be tested for steroids and other illegal substances, but also for drugs which affect their natural sex hormones. Perhaps too the time has come for creating a third gender category for transgendered athletes or reevaluating those sports where differences in gender would not create potential unfair outcomes or cause physical harm to a contestant.

I know there are those who believe that there are no real differences in the sexes, regardless of how many genders beyond the original two they think there are, but both biology and anthropology would disagree as would real world competition. The Human species, like all other animals, developed specialties based on their unique qualities. We have advanced scientifically to the point where we can tinker with our own biology. However, there are some things which we cannot and perhaps may never change. Until that day comes, we should appreciate and celebrate the differences between the genders, and that includes the unique strengths and weaknesses of both.

Sports is about achieving your personal best while sports competition is testing your best against an opponent, be that an individual, another team, or an object. Allowing transgendered individuals to compete against a someone who is a biological male or female creates a unnatural advantage for one while handicapping the other. I've watched top females athletes go up against unranked transgendered males in sports like MMA, boxing, Greco-Roman (Olympic) wrestling and get the bejeezus beaten out of them. It wasn't even close to a fair match. Even in sports like weightlifting or track, biology can create a insurmountable advantage. While we're at it, women's sport should received the same about of attention as the males, including funding for school related sports and coaching staff.

Some might argue that genetics creates an unfair advantage, so what's the difference? The difference is that everyone must deal with their own genetics as dealt to them naturally whereas biology applies those differences differently based on their natural gender. Men and women will always have unique strengths and weaknesses, especially when it comes to sports. We should accept and value those differences rather than impose one on the other. I take no issue with transgendered individuals wanting to compete, but let's make it a fair match up and have them compete against other transgendered individuals or perhaps give a size and weight advantage to the natural gendered opponent.


Professor of Physiology says transgendered athlete has advantage in speed, power

Gender identity and sport: is the playing field level?

Martina Navratilova on trans-athletes: 'Letting men compete as women is unfair'

Here's a List of 58 Gender Options for Facebook Users

Reflections on Memorial Day

For perhaps the majority of people, Memorial Day is simply the "official " kickoff of Summer; a four day weekend. Public pools are opened in most communities while families and friends enjoy cookouts or start their vacations. All of that is well and good, but that was never the intent of Memorial Day. Memorial Day was set aside originally as "Remembrance Day".

Today, "Remembrance Day" as Memorial Day was originally called, is more about remembering to bring the charcoal, hotdogs and hamburgers, and sun screen than as a day of national and familial or even personal reflection on the lives lost in defense of this nation's freedoms. As a nation, many of us would go visit cemeteries to plant flags, attend some form of religious or even secular service, or even watch a parade honoring our veterans and first responders. Not so much anymore.

Nowadays, it's becoming harder and harder to find volunteers to place flags on the graves of the fallen; the only true heroes in my opinion. In the case of the Civil War, which was the bloodiest war ever fought by this nation (more lives were lost during the War Between the States than all other US wars combined), it has become "politically incorrect" to honor the Confederate dead. Many towns and cities have removed Confederate statues, while some are simply vandalized with little effort made to catch and punish the perpetrators.

At cemeteries, it has now become unacceptable to fly the Stars and Bars over the graves of Confederate dead, or even to place small Confederate flags on their graves. It's a shame really, and bit ironic that the graves of British dead as a result of the American Revolution or the War of 1812 are permitted a Union Jack to be placed on their graves. The Japanese aren't denied the red and white Imperial "Rising Sun" at US controlled sites in the Pacific (which are maintained by Japanese military associations).

It's odd to when you think about how much misinformation is put out about this greatest tragedy in American history; most of it in a coordinated manner with the sole intent on rewriting history; to create to new political narrative which is so foreign from the original issues that those who fought in this war over 150 years ago would never recognize. But historical politics aside, those who fought and died for the "Lost Cause" were, above all else, Americans.

They believed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They believed that God was on their side, as was the Spirit of the Founding Fathers. They believed in individual freedom and personal responsibility. They believed in the rights of the States and in a limited federal government. As an aside, the majority of the descendants of the Founding Fathers living at that time supported the cause of independence for the Southern States. Yes, slavery was an issue, but not the sole issue and certainly not an issue limited to the South. It impacted the entire nation, but it was not the central issue as we've been misled to believe.

But slavery and its impact is not the topic of this article. Respect and remembrance of the fallen is. Never should we disrespect those who fought and died for this country, regardless of what color uniform they wore or our modern political sensibilities dictate. We have only a distorted understanding at best of what happened over a century ago. Don't forget that it's the victors who write the histories, which often changes as the political winds blows.

We should also never allow our fallen be dishonored regardless of our political beliefs. We are Americans first; before we are Independents, Liberals, Conservatives, whatever political party we belong to, or even our personal opinion about a given war, be it on US soil, the Pacific, Middle East, Europe, or the jungles of Southeast Asia and regardless of our skin color or ethnic background. Death doesn't make a distinction, why should we? We should honor them in the way they would want to be honored.

On a related note, I feel that I need to comment briefly about the recent NFL decision regarding kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem. For those of you who haven't heard, NFL owners have finally come together (due in large part to falling revenues as fans went elsewhere to spend their money) to ban kneeling by players during the anthem. The league has, in all fairness, left it up to the teams whether to remain in the locker room during the playing of the anthem, or come onto the field as they've always done (individual players may also elect to stay in the locker room).

However, if teams elected to come onto the field and one or more players kneel, that team will be accessed a 15 yard penalty on the opening kickoff. The league also approved an $89 million dollar "social injustice" platform to help address issues which allegedly underlined some of the protests. Sounds pretty fair to me. Nevertheless, as expected, many of the "talking heads" on the various talk shows oppose the policy, claiming that the team owners "caved" or were "cowards", which is complete hogwash.

First and foremost, football is a business. The overwhelming majority of Americans found the actions of these players disrespectful; disrespectful to active duty military, veterans, first responders, and finally, to America itself. As a result, the NFL lost millions of dollars in sports related revenue. Television ratings took a nose dive and stadiums were left with hundreds of empty seats. Advertisers started looking elsewhere to place their ads. Sports related merchandise sales also took a huge hit. Americans spoke with their most powerful weapon---not the vote (which has become increasingly meaningless anyway)---but their dollars. That's something business types understand well.

Fans told the NFL and everyone else associated with the games, "Don't disrespect our flag. We're here to watch a game---a game---not be subjected to someone's political rant", and they are right. Once players put that uniform on, they represent the team, the owners, and the NFL. Their decision to make a political statement on our time---the fans---has no place on that field. If they want to protest out on the street, in front of a courthouse, or wherever---on their own time, then so be it. Great. Have at it. But as players, they do not have the right to our time to air their political grievances. It was this kind of "look at me" behavior which killed professional baseball as America's unofficial national sport a few decades ago, and America has never forgotten. It would appear that neither have NFL team owners.

Americans are, by and large, a pretty relaxed and easy going bunch, but there are a few things we won't stand for. Disrespecting our flag, our nation, our military and veterans--both living and fallen---are just a few of them. So, as you and yours celebrate Memorial Day, take a moment or two to remember those who made this all possible, regardless of the war or color of their uniform. They were ordinary Americans, once full of life and dreams with families and loved ones...just like you and me .


New policy requires on-field players to stand for anthem



Remembrances on Memorial Day

Player's Kneel Down: Loss of Fans and Revenue for Team Players and the NFL

Well, here we go again. It's just about football season and rather than talking about a given team's prospects of winning their division, or who got picked up (or dropped), salary caps, stadium updates, fantasy teams and all that other fun "sporty" stuff, we're once again dealing with what appears to be a recurring blight on America's favorite sport, namely the refusal of some players to show America respect during the playing of our National Anthem.

Last year, this alleged "silent protest" directed at the United States, was initiated by San Francisco's QB, Colin Kaepernick among others who later joined in. The protest spread throughout the league like chicken pox. While most players stood to honor America, a decidedly few chose to either sit on the bench, kneel, or kneel with giving the old "Black Power" fist salute, which would seem to indicate that this "protest" was less about policy decisions and more about race. Last year, most NFL coaches, managers, and owners took the coward's way out and simply took no action (a few actually joined in) There were a few who told their player's that if they wanted to play, they were to stand; they could cover their heart with the hand or not, but they would stand. A tiny few number of players simply elected to come onto the field after the playing of the National Anthem, which, I guess, was ok too.

This year, the protest has been kicked off by Seattle Seahawks' Michael Bennett, who called on white players to join in order to play down the protest's racial aspect. Some players have elected to take a knee in a circle and (presumably) offer up some sort of football prayer which most likely included something about not getting cut or seeing their merchandise marketability decline. There's been a few who've been blatantly disrespectable by setting on an exercise bike, doing calisthenics, or pretending to be looking at a playbook. A few owners, coaches, and team managers have stepped up again and said they would not tolerate their player's disrespectfulness toward the flag and what it stands for. Naturally, there has been some who claim to stand by their players and respect their actions. As for the National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodall, he has publicly stated he disagrees with the choice of kneeling but supported the player's "right to protest".

Interestingly, after Kaepernick's protest began to spread, fans voiced their opinions too. The overwhelming majority of them booed those who dishonored the flag. Sales of player specific merchandise also plummeted. Teams with large numbers of kneeing players saw their attendance take a sharp decline. Tens of thousands of fans began switching channels, which apparently will continue to happen. While one would think that the teams owners, coaches, and the NFL would have gotten to together over the summer to address this as a financial issue and stop the hemorrhage of fans and money, but they didn't. I guess they thought (or hoped) that that 2016 season was simply an aberration. However, TV networks were a little quicker on the uptake. As viewership declined, so did advertising revenue. So, in a clever little move, several of the television networks simply stopped including the playing of the National Anthem in their broadcasts. Some also ignored or simply didn't address the topic when discussing those players; focusing strictly on their role as players.

As an aside, colleges, high schools, and in a few cases, junior high schools and unaffiliated leagues saw their players starting to emulate what they were saw on TV or read in sports columns. In many cases the players were copying what they had seen and or heard about without any real understanding as to the meaning beyond witnessing their favorite player(s) do it. Of course, it brought them some attention and what jock didn't like attention, especially if it came from the opposite sex? Touchdown! Shall we go for two extra points or just one?

So, here we are, at the start of a new season with another chance to get back to watching football and talking about stats. But it looks like it's not be folks. I know that some you have no problem with the players taking a knee during the National Anthem. Most of you are probably still in the kitchen looking for the bottle opener or chips and dip, so it's over by the time you get into the TV room anyway. As I said earlier, some networks are simply opting out of even showing the opening salute, so the issue actually becomes a nonstarter for all concerned. As for the players, almost everyone who participated in the protests saw their marketability drop, meaning that they lost money...big money, as did the teams who permitted it, the NFL, and the television networks. Kaepernick, whose stats were never all that great to begin with, was cut by San Francisco, and has yet found a team willing to pick him up. Actions always have consequences.

Seattle's Michael Bennett, who has evidently picked up the preverbal sword Kaepernick fell on, is calling for more white players to join in the protests in order to give it "more legitimacy", and hopefully, more support from the fans. I don't think that's going to happen (I need to stress that Seattle isn't the only team doing it this season. At this point, it seems that all of the teams will be affected). Let me tell you why. This so-called "protest" was originally tied to the Black Lives Matter movement and "social injustice" within the black community (with the increasing violence of BLM, there has been an obvious distancing between the "protesting" players and BLM). White players don't have a dog in this fight, and really neither does anyone else.

The fact they are playing a sport for a living, making six or seven figures salaries, lifetime health coverage and having to play...err..."work" for a decade or two tops. Yeah, there are injuries, but they are covered by the best hospitals and doctors in the business. I would also find it hard to believe that many of the black players within the NFL support the action of the BLM. I would imagine they would rather see improvements in the quality of education and creation of more minority owned businesses. As for those players who are on the fence about what to do, they've all seen what happened to the finances of other players (the Bronco's Brandon Marshal lost a very lucrative endorsement deal) not to mention their decline in popularity among fans and coaches.

Now, I'm sure there are some who say these players have a "right" to free speech, and that includes a right to freedom of expression. Well, normally, I would agree. I think that the First Amendment is perhaps that most important "right" we have. But, just like you can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater, there are restrictions to that freedom. NFL players are just like many of you---you're an employee. That means you likely work for a corporate business of some sort. Now, most people don't realize that that the Bill of Rights, where we find the various Amendments, are not automatic.

That's right, your "rights" are restricted by your corporate employer. These players were signed to do a specific job, just like you were. When these players put on their uniform and walk out on the field, they cease being ordinary citizens. They are hired employees retained to do a job. Their personal opinions or beliefs are really of no interest. They represent their team, their fellow teammates, their coaches, managers, and, of course, the owners, as well as the National Football League. So, when they come out on the field and decide to make a political statement---regardless of their intent---it is reflected back on all those just mentioned.

To put it another way, when these "employees" come out in their "business attire" and make a political statement which is seen by the ticket buying public and the viewers at home (and indirectly, the advertisers) as offensive, it's not just bad business, but it reflects on the entire team all the way up the chain to Mr. Goodall. For better or worse, kneeling or pretending to be doing something else (or even not pretending), during the play of our National Anthem is like giving America-- especially the military, veterans, and first responders, including emergency room doctors and nurses, and the rest of America (and especially the fans who shelled out big bucks to watch a sporting event, not a political event) "the bird".

If you, as an employee, want to protest something that's not work related, you don't do it on company time, in the company's uniform, and in front of their customers. If you, as an player, have a political gripe that's great. I'm glad you're interested in something other than financial portfolio, arm candy, or avoiding jail during the off season. However, do it on your own time---not your teammate's or the coaches and owners, not the NFL's, and sure as hell not on our time as fans.



Roger Goodall said a bunch of nothing about players kneeling during National Anthem



NFL's Michael Bennett said a White Player Needed to Kneel During the Anthem


Browns players kneel in prayer during National Anthem

Muhammad Ali Jr. and Champs's Second Wife, Khalilah, Detained at Florida Airport: Profiling?

I'm not sure what to make of this. According to reports, Khalilah Camacho-Ali, the second wife of the late boxer, Muhammad Ali and his son, Muhammad Ali Jr. were detained and question at the airport in Florida by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. Now, this is interesting, at least to me, for a few reasons. First, both individuals were singled out for "random" questioning following their arrival at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport from Montego Bay in Jamaica, where Ali Junior had attended a "Black History Month" event (as an aside, both Khalilah and her son live within a half an hour of the Ft. Lauderdale airport). Jamaica is on the government's "watch list" because of the number of folks trying to smuggle drugs in (It's not as common as it was during the smuggling days of the later 1960's through the 1980's, but it still occasionally happens). That's not really a big deal. Second, both individuals were asked if they were Muslims, which they answered in the affirmative after the immigration agent saw their names on their respective passports.

Apparently, "something" must have happened to trigger the agent's attention and both were hustled off to separate rooms to be questioned, presumably as to their reason for entering the country. Nevertheless, the late champ's wife, was able to convince officials who she was and even produced a photo of her and her ex-husband (Khalilah was married to Ali from 1967 until 1977 and had four children together, Maryum, Rasheda, Jamillah, and Muhammad Ali Jr, who had a estranged relationship with their famous father). Unfortunately, her son wasn't quite so lucky. He remained in custody for close to two hours, under questioning while his mother tried to persuade immigration officials who he was. Eventually, he was freed and mother and son were permitted to leave.

As I said, I can understand being randomly singled out, especially when coming from a country on the "watch list". It's happens. It's usually is just a minor inconvenience and takes a up some of your time, but ultimately they simply apologize for the delay and you're back on your way; a little ruffled but no worse for wear. Secondly, when the immigration agent asked for their passport and other ID, "something" must have happened to arouse their suspension (I'm giving them the benefit of doubt here). Yes, their names are Muslim sounding, but that can't be all that unusual, especially these days. But what happened next? Was something said or was there some subtle body language which raised the hairs on the back of the agent's neck? Whatever it was, it resulted in them being taken to separate rooms to be questioned (perhaps "interrogated" would be a better word). Apparently, they were questioned as to where they were born, why had they gone to Jamaica, what did they do there, who did they speak with, why were they flying back into this particular airport and where were they headed; typical 101 level questioning. (I doubt any rubber hoses or Play-doh filled socks were produced during either interview). Meanwhile, "Momma" Ali was apparently allowed access to her purse or suitcase and was able to produce a picture of herself and the champ.

Based on this evidence, she was allowed to gather up her stuff and leave. However, when she couldn't find her son, Muhammad, she was informed that he was still being questioned. Why? Didn't the two teams compare notes? Didn't the team which questioned Khalilah fail to speak with the other group? If so, he should have been cleared and freed immediately. Again, "something" is wrong here. Any interrogation team should be in constant communication with any other team, if, for no other reason, except to review the direction and responses of the questioning. Nevertheless, with the intervention of their family attorney, Chris Mancini, and possibly others, Muhammad Ali Junior was finally freed.

Some are already calling this "profiling" and there is, naturally, talk of a lawsuit. Under the circumstances, it certainly sounds like profiling, at least on the surface. Of course, what kind of "profiling" was this---"Vacationing While Black? Travelling Under a Non-Traditional Name? Possession of a Non-Famous Photo ID? Perhaps it was simply traveling from a country on the "watch list" or they were acting a little overly nervous. Maybe it was wearing gaudy clothes or copping an attitude. I don't know. I would hope the immigration agent was well experienced and had a good reason to do what they did. Still, from what we know of their detention and questioning (which is very little), it wasn't handled properly. There should have been closer interaction between the two teams of "interviewers", and that didn't appear to happen. Once Khalilah Camacho-Ali was cleared, and barring anything done or said by Muhammad (such as mouthing off like his famous dad), he should have been immediately released. I think it's good that a borders and airports are being watched again, I just hope they're watching the right people.


Muhammad Ali Jr detained by immigration at Florida airport

Hank Got Yanked!

Are you ready for some football? Well, I am and so is just about every red-blooded American, but what we got last week was some petty tit-for-tat petty politics. Country-Western performer Hank Williams Jr. had the audacity to utter an unflattering personal opinion about "the Messiah". No, I'm not talking about Buddha, Jesus, or even Mohammad. I'm talking about Barrack Obama of course (well, isn’t that what he’s called?).

It seems that ole Hank doesn't like Obama's economic policies (referring to America as the “United Socialist States of America”), particularly in this case, his policy towards Israel. Williams commented on the Fox show Fox and Friends that he thought Obama playing golf with Israel's PM, Benjamin Netanyahu was the moral equivalent to Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu. The result was ESPN pulling Hank's signature theme "Are You Ready for Some Football" from its Monday Night Football game.

Now, I'm not going to get into whether Hank should have kept his mouth shut or not or if ESPN overreacted. Hank had a first amendment right to speak his mind, and ESPN had a right to speak theirs by yanking Hank’s song. But it's no secret that Obama has adopted a highly supportive Arabic/Moslem attitude, beginning with his presidential apology tour at the start of his term. Indeed, Obama has been doing some serious arm twisting on one of our best allies and the only democracy in the region. Perhaps if some other Israeli was prime minister, Israel may have cried "onkel" by now, but "Bibi" as he is known is no ordinary Israeli, or politician for that matter.

A conservative "take no prisoners" politician, Benjamin Netanyahu has proved to be one of the strongest leaders in the region, adding a strength of character that is badly needed in a hostile and unstable region. So, just who is this guy at the heart of the controversy?

Benjamin Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv in 1949, the year after Israel’s creation. He attended high school in Philadelphia before returning to Israel. He served in the Sayeret Matka unit (reconnaissance and intelligence) of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). He served in War of Yom Kippur (both on the Suez and the Golan Heights) and took an active part in several hostage rescue missions, reaching the rank of Captain. Obviously, not faint of heart.

After his military service, he returned to the US to attend MIT and obtained a BA degree in architecture and later, obtained a MA degree from MIT’s Sloan School of Management as well as studied political science at Harvard University. Imagine a politician who is also a “thinker”!

He’s served on several peace delegations; UN Ambassador to Israel; and twice as Prime Minister, and these are just the high lights! Netanyahu is a member of the center right Likud political party (think moderate Republican). Like all of the Israel’s previous prime ministers, Netanyahu is committed friend of America.

On the other side of the coin, we have Barak Obama who has been “wishy washy” toward Israel at best while promoting a less the subtle pro-Arab foreign policy. He has more than once been critical of Israel’s need to security. Friendship is a two way street. Israel is not just our sole democratic friend in the region; it is the sole democratic country in the region! It provides critical stability in a part of the world where we and the West depend for our economic life blood --- oil. It is a valuable trade partner, especially in the areas of medical equipment and computer technology. Militarily, Israel provides not just a strategic base, but is the key partner in our intelligence gathering network (they had even warned the CIA of the 9/11 attacks several days before the event).

So, where does this leave us? Well, Hank got his signature song yanked from ESPN, but it is too imbedded in the American psyche to matter. ESPN is airing the National Anthem until they can find something to summon the America’s testosterone pool to the TV at 8:00 Mondays. In the end, Hank has a new song about the ballyhoo where he takes a well-earned swing at both sides entitled “I’ll keep my …”, so he’ll make out alright. Benjamin Netanyahu’s popularity has increased both here and at home. And Obama’s foreign policy looks like so much kiddie doodle. Meanwhile, me and my rowdy friends just wanna watch some football.


Suggested Reading:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-hankwilliams-idUSTRE7954ZM20111010

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/defiant-hank-williams-jr-cuts-new-song-20111010