Kaepernick and his Precious Rights

Colin Kaepernick has the right to say whatever he wants.

He does not have the right to say whatever he wants on the team's time, wearing their uniform, as a member of the NFL. The league is a tightly-managed brand that has had ridiculous rules about every little detail of a player's appearance, for decades. They have clauses in player contracts about conduct off the field that is detrimental to the team or the league. They control everything about players, and if you don't believe me, go ask some of them. This is all common knowledge among NFL fans.

So they can damn well control his conduct in uniform, on the field, during the national anthem, in front of 60,000 fans and millions of TV viewers (although 15% fewer this year, and what a coincidence that is). You might think the NFL -- in deference to their advertisers who buy expensive ad time on those TV broadcasts, if nothing else -- would judge Kaepernick's conduct (and similar conduct of other players) as damaging to the league's reputation, and the team's goodwill in the community. They do not, obviously.

If the league was run intelligently, this should not have been a hard call: "We believe in a player's right to speak out on issues that are important to them, on their own time, when not wearing a uniform." Done.

Players like Kaepernick get to have their say, clueless as they are, and the NFL and teams like the 49ers save their reputations. It's an obvious home run. But not for Goodell and his army of SJW lawyers that run the NFL.

What this tells me is that they agree with him, or are afraid to disagree, which amounts to the same thing. The NFL is more than happy to do the bidding of BLM, including all the anti-cop violence and death threats that go with it. Why else did they refuse the Dallas Cowboys' request to wear stars on their uniforms to honor the five cops killed in Dallas? They refuse that request, and piss off more goodwill with the cops across the entire nation, and then they turn around and tolerate Kaepernick's obvious politicizing on the opposite side of that issue?

I already knew Roger Goodell was a really bad NFL commissioner, but I had no idea how bad. Or maybe he's just another anti-American lefty tool. Either way, this is not what I'm looking for when I want to watch a sporting event.

Players need to stand up for the national anthem. This is non-negotiable. Any league with competent leadership, that is *not* anti-American, would understand that instinctively, and react decisively and promptly.

We went to a funeral for a 16 year old young man this past weekend. He took his own life.

There were very few, if any, signs of trouble, from what I've heard (we did not know him well, but we do know his older sister pretty well). No indication of depression or anxiety, no drama or obvious signs of internal turmoil. In fact, the usual markers of stability were present: lots of friends, active socially, well-liked by all, a good athlete, strong Christian family.

The funeral itself was extremely difficult, as you would expect. Many of his friends were there, plus some teachers and coaches, and several kids who didn't even know him but wanted to show their support. Going through all of their minds, as it went through mine, was the thought "How in the world could this possibly have happened? What are we doing here? Why did he give up? Why didn't he turn to his friends and family to help him?"

How does a seemingly normal, well-adjusted young man, with everything to live for, at least on the outside, simultaneously live a tortured existence internally, so tortured for so long that he cannot tolerate it any longer? That level of disconnect seems almost impossible. And yet, here we are.

We tell ourselves that there must have been something, some kind of warning sign, or clue, or red flag, and if only we had seen it, maybe we could have helped. If only we hadn't failed him, that's what we really mean, even though it's almost certainly not true.

But maybe there was nothing. Maybe nobody could have helped him.

Maybe maybe maybe. Why why why. This is the aftermath for everybody who knew him, forever.

It's a kind of prison, and it takes a lot of mental energy to break free of it, and it can take a long time. But we have to do it. I'm no psychologist but I've had some experience with this kind of thing in my own family, and the questions never really go away, although they do lessen over time.

You have a life to live, and no amount of beating yourself up will change the past, especially something you probably had little control over in the first place.

It still hurts, though, to think you might not have been able to help somebody you love, and who is in great pain. It feels like failure, in your own mind, and that makes it plenty real, whatever the "truth" might be.

Still, you have to learn to forgive yourself. It's not easy, and it can take a long time. but it is really, really important. Time spent wishing you could change the past is time wasted, but sometimes we can change the future by making different choices. Honor the memory of a loved one by remembering the best things about their time with you, and resolve to live your own life with no regrets by living in the moment, right now, today, engaged with your friends and loved ones.

It sounds trite until you go to a funeral for a 16-year-old.

I hope and pray that his family and friends can find the strength to heal themselves from the pain, and find some kind of peace. It's certainly not going to be easy.

We can't always know all the answers to the things that perplex and confound us, no matter how much we try. And while it's probably much too soon to find that helpful, someday it will become very helpful to learn to accept that. in the end.

Trump and Hysterical Fear-Mongering

Reading Don Surber ("Trump Fascism") convinced me to put some thoughts down that have been echoing in my head for months now.

Lately we hear lots of claims that Trump will be some kind of epochal, "never before in history" downgrade from, one assumes, an uninterrupted string of virtuous presidents. It's only now, at this moment, when Trump is knocking at the door, that we must all go on high alert and man our battle stations to prevent what is sure to be the worst disaster EVAR.

I find this argument to be laughably stupid.

Exhibit A: Bill Clinton. Remember his conduct and how it degraded the office, and how after his term, and all the talk about oral sex in the news, and the stained blue dress, and all of that, the kids decided that oral sex wasn't really sex, so now 14 year old girls give out bl*wjobs like candy. Nice going, dipshit. And his wife has a long history of enabling and defending her serial abuser husband against claims of rape, harassment, and other charges. He was also disbarred from practicing law for a period of five years in the state of Arkansas, to avoid facing contempt charges from the Lewinsky testimony. Or was it the Jones testimony? There's so many of them. Again: Hillary Clinton is married to this pervert. Am I supposed to be more worried about Trump, compared to this team? Really?

Exhibit B: Barack Obama. He has already brought more shame and dishonor on that office in two terms than I've ever seen, BY FAR, in my many decades on this planet -- and that includes Watergate. He insults and demonizes his domestic political opponents, taunts and belittles traditional overseas friends while kissing up to despicable despotic regimes like Iran's, makes unwise promises he has no intention of keeping, and routinely abuses the Constitution by overstepping the power of the office and issuing decrees from the balcony like a Roman emperor. He does it all with a disdainful "I'm smarter and better than you" stance, and reminds you of it by referencing himself countless times in every speech. He is by far the biggest jackass, and the least qualified individual, to hold the office of President in my lifetime. And that includes Jimmy Carter, so ...

This is just in the last 20 years. The Clinton impeachment hearings were only 18 years ago.

The White House is not in good hands now, and it has not been in good hands very much in the last 50 years. Trump, whose life has been mostly scandal free, is quite likely an upgrade from those two.
 
But if Trump is just not your cup of tea, for whatever reason, that's a perfectly reasonable position, since voting is ultimately an irrational, emotional act in the first place. Most of us don't really use rational, fact- and policy-based reasons to vote for candidates; the vast majority of voters just don't have the time or aptitude to get into things that deeply, and we can't expect them to. Most people vote for candidates, actual people, not policies.

But the fascist talk, the "never before in history" talk, the "he's not worthy of the office" talk, is hysterical fear mongering. You might believe it, but that doesn't make it true, or persuasive.

Hysterical fear-mongering always rings hollow, especially during scary times when America already feels like taking a risk on a guy like Trump in the first place. People are very worried about the direction we are heading, and the quality of our "leaders" and governance, and as a result are much less risk-averse.

We already have a "fascist" in office, exactly the kind of president our system of government is designed to prevent. History shows that we had a remarkable succession of clowns in the White House, both in the last 20 years, the whole Nixon/Ford/Carter disaster, plus the entire period after Lincoln and before Theodore Roosevelt. In fact, we've had *lots* of lousy presidents.

Some advice to the Never Trump people. If (a) you're not going to vote at all in a public show of petulant defiance, fine, please just shut up about it already, or (b) you're going to vote Hillary in a public show of petulant defiance, fine, come out for Hillary and quit yammering about the GOP nominee. Pick one. And get ready to watch 2 or 3 Hillary nominated judges remove every last one of your freedoms.

Nobody ever said you are entitled to love every candidate your party nominated, and some of us had to put up with your shitty candidates in the past but we held our noses and voted for them anyway, and LOST. I voted for the biggest RINO of them all, McCain in '08, do you think I wanted him? And he lost. I voted for Romney in '12, a decent candidate, who I actually liked, but he was far too nice for presidential politics. And he lost and election that was very winnable.

What was your plan to compensate me for supporting your shitty candidates, and handing the election to an America-hating clown prince like Obama? I'm waiting.

The legacy of Ted Williams

There is a famous story about the legendary Ted Williams and his last at-bat in the major leagues, a home run, the 521st of his career. But that's not what makes the story famous.

What makes the story famous is the fact that he refused to come out of the dugout to acknowledge the cheers of the Fenway Park faithful that day.

As described in the essay by John Updike "Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu", the fans cheered for many long minutes, and even chanted "We Want Ted! We Want Ted!". But he never came out of the dugout, on the last at-bat of his entire career at the ballpark he called home for 22 seasons.

This illustrates very succinctly the complicated relationship Ted Williams had with, well, nearly everybody.

But before we judge him for not being as cute and cuddly as we'd like, there is a side of Mr. Williams that might help us understand him a bit better. A side, perhaps, that is not as well known.

In addition to being one of the top two hitters of all time (along with the Babe), he was an ace fighter pilot in the Marines, and a world-class fisherman. To say he was a man of many talents is to understate his legacy by a wide margin.

His military life started in May, 1942, and rather than accept a cream-puff Naval baseball gig, he volunteered to be a pilot.

Because he is Teddy Ballgame, he expected to excel at it. And he did.

In fighter pilot training, he was excellent at dogfighting, the best in his class, according to his future teammate Johnny Pesky, who was in the same class. Pesky, who didn't qualify for the advanced fighter pilot training, on Ted's talents:

“I heard Ted literally tore the 'sleeve target' to shreds with his angle dives. He'd shoot from wingovers, zooms, and barrel rolls, and after a few passes the sleeve was ribbons. At any rate, I know he broke the all-time record for hits. ... From what I heard. Ted could make a plane and its six 'pianos' (machine guns) play like a symphony orchestra. From what they said, his re­flexes, coordination, and visual reaction made him a built-in part of the machine."

Which is not surprising. Because it's Ted Williams we're talking about here.

He served for nearly four years during WWII, mostly as a flight instructor, and then for about 18 months during the Korean War. He was united with John Glenn, future astronaut, on about half his 39 missions in Korea.

In addition to his piloting prowess, he was recognized as a fly fishing expert as well, and was elected to the International Game Fish Association Hall of Fame in 2000. Again, he is Teddy F'ing Ballgame, and we're not.

Ted Williams was one of those men who knew exactly who he was and why he was here, and what he did well and what he did not. And so he did those things better than just about anybody else. Without apologies.

He paid a price for this, to be sure. His relationships with fans, the media, and others were sacrificed on the altar of the Teddy Ballgame persona.

So he was not universally loved, but he was universally respected, and for some people, that is more important. He was pretty damn good at three things that very few people can do even one of: hitting a baseball, and flying fighters, and fishing. For this he has my eternal respect and admiration.

This quote by Richard Ben Cramer seems to sum up his life quite well: "He wanted fame, and wanted it with a pure, hot eagerness that would have been embarrassing in a smaller man. But he could not stand celebrity. This is a bitch of a line to draw in America's dust."

Links:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2009/04/hbo-will-chronicle-ted-williams.html?csp=34
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/hub_fans_bid_kid_adieu_article.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams

Stuff to read

Gender insanity even at a Jesuit university like Marquette: Marquette's Gender Regime - Mickey L. Mattox, First Things

Wrote this one year ago (plus two days), on March 9 2015, and it seems pretty much spot on, even today: Hillary Clinton's bullshit and the puzzling question of why Americans line up to buy it.

Mercury and vaccines

Several years ago I wrote up a couple of things about this topic in various places - see here and here.

I'm still not convinced that mercury in vaccines is completely, 100%, fault-free in higher diagnosis rates of autism over the last 20+ years. It seems to me there is some pretty compelling evidence that it is at least a factor, and might even be the primary factor, and none of this means or implies that it "causes" autism.

First, stop using the phrase "vaccines cause autism" - it's a gross over-simplification of the facts. From that first link above, about causation arguments, which are used much too often in any context:

Causation arguments require a very high burden of proof. To say A “causes” B is to make a very strong statement: the presence of A, and A alone, is sufficient to make B happen. I doubt that is truly what any of the proponents of the vaccine–autism link are claiming.

The theory behind the vaccine – autism link that appeals to logic and the surrounding facts is this: that the amount of mercury we purposely inject into our kids at a young age via vaccination contributes greatly to whatever mercury they’ve already ingested. And in some cases, this can be enough to trigger a variety of autism-related disorders. Especially if the child has a depressed immune system when receiving the MMR vaccination. I.e., if they have a cold, or the flu, or other forms of a depressed immune system. Which, of course, is the typical anecdotal evidence brought by parents of PDD children.

In fact, when you dig a little bit deeper here, the symptoms of autism are remarkably similar to the symptoms of mercury poisoning.

And since mercury is sometimes found in the food we eat, and sometimes the air we breathe, and can be passed to children in the womb or via breast milk, it is possible that this accumulated amount of mercury, from all sources, and in some circumstances, can be enough to push some kids into a toxic state of mercury poisoning.
Note all the qualifiers: “possible”, “accumulated”, “from all sources”, “some circumstances”, “can be”, “some kids”.

So I'm on board with the "vaccines do not cause autism" argument, because I think that grossly misrepresents the scientific, fact-based, analytical discussion at hand.

But I could be wrong.

Then there is this, from that second link above:

(1) There was no known safe level of exposure to the type of mercury used in thimerasol.

(2) [...] Even the FDA admits that some kids were exposed to toxic levels of mercury for the kind of mercury they think they understand, but that kids were not exposed to. This (nearly) guarantees that some kids were exposed to toxic levels of ethylmercury unless ethylmercury is much less toxic than methylmercury.

It's a bit confusing so I'll try to restate for clarity. The immunization schedule for children during the 90s was deemed safe for methylmercury - but thimerasol contained ethylmercury, for which there was no known safe exposure level.

Stated more simply, we placed an unwitting bet that ethylmercury was less toxic than methylmercury, without knowing if that was true or not, and then we experimented on our children with it.

That's my reading of it, anyway, I could be wrong - I just haven't seen anybody refute these very specific arguments before.

So, until I do, I will believe that our government was pushing the medical profession, and parents, to inject babies with a vaccine with a type of mercury for which there was no known safe level at the time. And to blithely ignore that seems a bit too much like dancing in the end zone after you fumbled at the 3 yard line.