National Anthem....the other side of the coin!

RJM posted:

Jay Glazer is one of the best at getting inside information on the NFL. He said Kaepernick is toast. It's not just the anthem incident. There are those who believe he's in rapid decline athletically and as a QB.

His act may have been to get released now rather than when rosters are pared down for the season next week. Getting released next week could have him out of football until a QB gets injured.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight.  There is a pare down coming next week....he is the backup quarter back...his numbers have been crap lately...and he just made a politically racially divided statement where he specifically said "If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right."

So, if the 49'ers had been say...oh...planning on dropping him next week due to these low numbers they might be frowned upon now for doing that?

CoachB25 posted:

JacJacatk, then you'd also have to factor other things in like the absurd number of African American children born to a single mother.  You can find several different numbers but a consistent is above 67%.  Then, you'd have to ask yourself who is responsible for that. 

I can tell you who is responsible for that number - liberals. And I say that despite that I am a left wing liberal. It was well meant, but liberals, both Democrat and Republican (yes, there used to be some of those), set up a system that was meant to fight poverty but instead isolated black communities in huge projects and then made the help they offered almost impossible to get for families. An entire generation of Black (and other poor) families could only get financial aid if the father wasn't in the home. Intact families received almost no help, so often an unemployed father could only help his children by actually leaving the family. It was an unintended result, but nevertheless...

Federal housing in the 70's was a disaster. By building these huge projects, we basically segregated poor, uneducated, unemployed people into large communities with no work and no future. What exactly did they think would happen? There have been movements in more recent years to mix federal housing into the general community. this works much better, but there are still cases and states where local administration is dismal. Years ago, I moved my family into low income federal housing while I went back to school. My home was rent controlled and basic, but nice. It was in a good neighborhood where they had dispersed the federal housing in among the community. However, there was one thing that I couldn't help but notice. All of the white families had housing like mine. All of the Black families were bunched together in one decaying neighborhood on the other side of the town. It was obviously by design. These problems still exist.

2forU posted:

Tim Tebow expressed his beliefs on the field - the double standard

Please explain the double standard you see.

Kaepernick expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

Tebow expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

I've taught my children that they are certainly free to express their beliefs and opinions as guaranteed by the constitution.  I've also taught them that they need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, and sometimes expressing your beliefs openly come with consequences.  I want to make certain that they understand that with rights come great responsibility.  I also make sure that they understand this is afforded to them under our Constitution and that many people before them sacrificed their lives and liberties to earn those freedoms for all of us.

2forU, I simply don't see a double standard.  I heard much in the media by people who were uncomfortable or offended with Tebow's open expression of his Christianity when he was relevant.  Much like I'm hearing much in the media by people who are uncomfortable or offended with Kaepernick's open expression while he remains relevant.

Well, when I got home from work yesterday and saw just what a firestorm this has become, I tried to dig up some actual facts, of course, via internet search.  What struck me in my search was that the first fifteen or so results were not articles by a nationally syndicated news source where there are at least some guidelines in place to provide factual account but opinion pieces by either hard left or hard right small faction cause writers that seemed to be based primarily on self serving assumptions.  

It was another one of those striking moments of realization that, in this age of massive information at our fingertips, it is actually more difficult to extract credible fact.

These pieces would leave one to believe that either Kaepernick is one step from becoming a jihadi terrorist or someone following in the pioneering footsteps of Jackie Robinson and MLK.  Geez.

Nuke83 posted:

2forU posted:

Tim Tebow expressed his beliefs on the field - the double standard

Please explain the double standard you see.

Kaepernick expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

Tebow expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

I've taught my children that they are certainly free to express their beliefs and opinions as guaranteed by the constitution.  I've also taught them that they need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, and sometimes expressing your beliefs openly come with consequences.  I want to make certain that they understand that with rights come great responsibility.  I also make sure that they understand this is afforded to them under our Constitution and that many people before them sacrificed their lives and liberties to earn those freedoms for all of us.

2forU, I simply don't see a double standard.  I heard much in the media by people who were uncomfortable or offended with Tebow's open expression of his Christianity when he was relevant.  Much like I'm hearing much in the media by people who are uncomfortable or offended with Kaepernick's open expression while he remains relevant.

You also have to take into account that when you take an extreme position on an issue where the vast majority of Americans agree with you, you won't take a lot of flack, and what flack you do take will be drowned out by support (i.e. Tebow). When you take a position that is not supported by the majority, you won't get that same benefit. That's just something any intelligent person knows when he takes a stand. I certainly don't feel sorry for Kaepernick. He had to have known what would happen. Hate his stand or not, there's a certain nobility in that.

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

roothog66 posted:

Nuke83 posted:

2forU posted:

Tim Tebow expressed his beliefs on the field - the double standard

Please explain the double standard you see.

Kaepernick expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

Tebow expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

I've taught my children that they are certainly free to express their beliefs and opinions as guaranteed by the constitution.  I've also taught them that they need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, and sometimes expressing your beliefs openly come with consequences.  I want to make certain that they understand that with rights come great responsibility.  I also make sure that they understand this is afforded to them under our Constitution and that many people before them sacrificed their lives and liberties to earn those freedoms for all of us.

2forU, I simply don't see a double standard.  I heard much in the media by people who were uncomfortable or offended with Tebow's open expression of his Christianity when he was relevant.  Much like I'm hearing much in the media by people who are uncomfortable or offended with Kaepernick's open expression while he remains relevant.

You also have to take into account that when you take an extreme position on an issue where the vast majority of Americans agree with you, you won't take a lot of flack, and what flack you do take will be drowned out by support (i.e. Tebow). When you take a position that is not supported by the majority, you won't get that same benefit. That's just something any intelligent person knows when he takes a stand. I certainly don't feel sorry for Kaepernick. He had to have known what would happen. Hate his stand or not, there's a certain nobility in that.

That's a given.  Much like the Dixie Chicks took a beating when they expressed their opinion with W during a time of extreme patriotism.  If Taylor Swift comes out today and says she loves strawberry ice cream, you'll see sales of strawberry ice cream spike.  If she says she thinks everyone should take up arms against the police because she believes them all racist, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say her popularity might take a hit.

Which goes to my question.  Where is a double standard.  If there is truly a double standard in play and perhaps I'm just missing it, I'd like to understand what it is I'm missing.  I understand most of both sides of this thread.  I just simply don't see the double standard to which 2forU raises.

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

So, history doesn't matter?

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

Ok fine.  But then what do all the Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices do to find employment? 

roothog66 posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

So, history doesn't matter?

Of course history matters, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.  Does anyone think the US has even a 0.000001% chance of passing laws allowing slavery again?  How about laws eliminating a woman's right to vote?

About every 50-60 years we tend to learn another lesson.  1865 Slavery Abolished.  1920 Women earn the right to vote. The 1980's saw a push for equal treatment of LGBT...that one is still ongoing.

The country and population is learning to be better.  What is the point of bringing up slavery if we aren't going to repeat that mistake?

JCG posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

Ok fine.  But then what do all the Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices do to find employment? 

They help society facilitate the changes we need in order to grow as a people.

CaCO3Girl posted:

JCG posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

Ok fine.  But then what do all the Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices do to find employment? 

They help society facilitate the changes we need in order to grow as a people.

As a people we can't simply gloss over our moral failings as a country or society. It is our responsibility to own them and repair whatever attitudes allowed such situations to exist. It isn't good enough to simply argue that times were different and people thought differently so slavery, for example, wasn't a moral failure on our part. You have to remember that even at the time we were still knee deep in the institution of slavery, the vast majority of developed nations had already come to the conclusion that it was morally wrong. The same goes for the Jim Crow South in the US and apartheid in South Africa. We don't develop morally as a nation until we own those failures and make sure they never happen again.

I live within a few miles of the site of the Sand Creek Massacre where the union Army slaughtered hundreds of Indian women and children in a camp. It's not enough to simply say, well, it was a different time and people had different attitudes towards native Americans. The mascot of our high school is "Savages." It sickens me. My ninth grade daughter has more of a backbone than I do. She refuses to stand for the pledge of allegiance at school and has done so since the seventh grade. She takes a lot of crap for that stance. Her answer is that she'll stand when the school changes it's name. Of course, locally, they try to argue that they are "honoring" Native Americans with the name. Why is this mascot so appalling? Because of the HISTORY behind it.

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

So, history doesn't matter?

Of course history matters, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.  Does anyone think the US has even a 0.000001% chance of passing laws allowing slavery again?  How about laws eliminating a woman's right to vote?

About every 50-60 years we tend to learn another lesson.  1865 Slavery Abolished.  1920 Women earn the right to vote. The 1980's saw a push for equal treatment of LGBT...that one is still ongoing.

The country and population is learning to be better.  What is the point of bringing up slavery if we aren't going to repeat that mistake?

The reason for bringing it up is that it's foolish to think that the institution doesn't have effects that linger even today. 200 years ago, white men owned everything. The controlled everything. That doesn't change with the stroke of a pen. Those things are passed down generation to generation. So wealth and power tends to accumulate into a very small group of hands that are determined by birth more than anything else. Over time, this changes. It only changes quickly in one way - revolution. We thankfully live in a country where that isn't a problem. So, absent revolution, the change is very slow. It will take hundreds of years before minorities and women are truly equal in power, economics, and influence. The same with social change. Slavery was abolished less than 150 years ago. Yet, real racial equality only made true and meaningful strides within my lifetime. Don't forget that separate water fountains, segregated schools, etc. all were a reality within the lifetimes and experiences of a great many living Americans. It's naïve to think that those experiences from just one generation ago don't still factor into what goes on today.

Somehow, this seems relevant....

justbaseball, link doesn't work 

2017LHPscrewball posted:

rynoattack posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

rynoattack posted:

2ndMarDiv posted:

I respectfully disagree on not having the same opportunities.  I think we all have the same opportunities we just don't have the same opportunities to good parenting.   

Oh, there are definitely different opportunities.  A person's money, family, and connections can surely provide better opportunities.  I will give another example:

My cousin (Mom's Sister's Daughter) has a white mother, and a Mexican father.  (Father from Mexico, mother from Alabama)  My cousin grew up in Atlanta where I was born and lived the younger part of my life.  Since my cousin was a minority, she was bussed across the city of Atlanta to a Performing Arts School.  Guess who didn't get bussed across the city of Atlanta?  You guessed it the poor, white kid that was her cousin.  So different opportunities do exist for different people.

That must have been a huge school if all the hispanic, half hispanic, and I assume all other minority students in the greater Atlanta area, were bused there to the exclusion of any and all poor white kids - or rich white kids for that matter.  Wait, that's probably not what really happened.  

Again, if someone wants to put forward a reasonable argument, please do so.  Citing Ben Carson, Herman Cain and, "if you are so inclined" Barack Obama (yea, I'll include him since he's the president of the United States) as examples proving the absence of "systematic oppression" is simply stupid (again, sort of like the VMA's).  The remark about getting left out of the Performing Arts school is just as stupid.  I realize this is the wrong forum to be discussing this topic in detail, but I cannot help resist in asking folks to be reasonable in their arguments.  Does Brittany Spears represent the "oppressed white girl" that struggled and made it to the VMA's?  Please stop citing the gross exceptions.  Didn't the Yankees once send a little person to the plate to get walked?  Maybe that instance should serve as inspiration for all little people to pursue a career in the MLB - sorry, that's what is known as a gross exception.

I'll stick to getting my baseball advice here.  Think it's time to shut this thread down as I do not see it adding any value to the hsbaseball core.

Yeah, you're completely right. I just made that story up...

I thought you might be exaggerating when you implied that the Performing Arts school was attended by every minority in the Atlanta area.  Otherwise I would have thought you were using a single example to try and prove some larger point that was not in fact true - my bad.  Again, that must have been a really big school - with a huge fleet of buses.  Any famous students?  Did they have an athletics program and compete in the super-size classification?  I assume the graduation ceremony took the entire weekend.

I have no doubt your cousin attended that school and you did not, however using that as some type of proof for whatever argument you are trying to make is - again - stupid.

Calling someone stupid in a discussion is very helpful, and an obvious deterrent to a civil conversation.  Nice job!

Calling someone stupid in a discussion is very helpful, and an obvious deterrent to a civil conversation.  Nice job!

Using the example of a single pair of kids in Atlanta to argue not only the absence of disparate opportunities, but infer the proverbial "poor white kid" is worse off is nonsensical - assuming one simply does not understand why a single example cannot be used.  If one knows better, than is becomes "stupid".  

That said, you either failed to support your societal argument about apparent equality or you were simply whining about not getting to go the performing arts school.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume it is the former and respectfully substitute the term "nonsensical".

baseballmom posted:

justbaseball, link doesn't work 

Oops - sorry.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbc...037f&oe=583B3F87

rynoattack posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

rynoattack posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

rynoattack posted:

2ndMarDiv posted:

I respectfully disagree on not having the same opportunities.  I think we all have the same opportunities we just don't have the same opportunities to good parenting.   

Oh, there are definitely different opportunities.  A person's money, family, and connections can surely provide better opportunities.  I will give another example:

My cousin (Mom's Sister's Daughter) has a white mother, and a Mexican father.  (Father from Mexico, mother from Alabama)  My cousin grew up in Atlanta where I was born and lived the younger part of my life.  Since my cousin was a minority, she was bussed across the city of Atlanta to a Performing Arts School.  Guess who didn't get bussed across the city of Atlanta?  You guessed it the poor, white kid that was her cousin.  So different opportunities do exist for different people.

That must have been a huge school if all the hispanic, half hispanic, and I assume all other minority students in the greater Atlanta area, were bused there to the exclusion of any and all poor white kids - or rich white kids for that matter.  Wait, that's probably not what really happened.  

Again, if someone wants to put forward a reasonable argument, please do so.  Citing Ben Carson, Herman Cain and, "if you are so inclined" Barack Obama (yea, I'll include him since he's the president of the United States) as examples proving the absence of "systematic oppression" is simply stupid (again, sort of like the VMA's).  The remark about getting left out of the Performing Arts school is just as stupid.  I realize this is the wrong forum to be discussing this topic in detail, but I cannot help resist in asking folks to be reasonable in their arguments.  Does Brittany Spears represent the "oppressed white girl" that struggled and made it to the VMA's?  Please stop citing the gross exceptions.  Didn't the Yankees once send a little person to the plate to get walked?  Maybe that instance should serve as inspiration for all little people to pursue a career in the MLB - sorry, that's what is known as a gross exception.

I'll stick to getting my baseball advice here.  Think it's time to shut this thread down as I do not see it adding any value to the hsbaseball core.

Yeah, you're completely right. I just made that story up...

I thought you might be exaggerating when you implied that the Performing Arts school was attended by every minority in the Atlanta area.  Otherwise I would have thought you were using a single example to try and prove some larger point that was not in fact true - my bad.  Again, that must have been a really big school - with a huge fleet of buses.  Any famous students?  Did they have an athletics program and compete in the super-size classification?  I assume the graduation ceremony took the entire weekend.

I have no doubt your cousin attended that school and you did not, however using that as some type of proof for whatever argument you are trying to make is - again - stupid.

Calling someone stupid in a discussion is very helpful, and an obvious deterrent to a civil conversation.  Nice job!

That didn't happen. There is a big difference between name-calling and assessing an argument.

justbaseball posted:

baseballmom posted:

justbaseball, link doesn't work 

Oops - sorry.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbc...037f&oe=583B3F87

SO TRUE!