For those of us who are still upset with the decision of Nike to pull sneakers showing the Betsy Ross flag, there is now an alternative from a competitor. Brooks Running shoes has launched a limited-edition Old Glory Collection shoe emblazoned with American flag-inspired style. As someone who has worn Brooks for years, I do not have to change but many are likely to do so. Nike left a lasting and indelible stain on its company for many Americans. Nike made a calculated decision to curry favor with Nike embraced Colin Kaepernick and his supporters by showing disrespect to this national symbol. For those who are enraged by Nike’s decision, the Brooks line reminds us that there are other shoe companies and some are less craven in their business decisions.
As I have stated earlier, I was flabbergasted by the decision of Nike to pull sneakers showing the early American flag because Kaepernick found it offensive. Supporters of Kaepernick has insisted that the flag is now a symbol of white supremacists. I do not know about the adoption by white supremacists but I am familiar with the flag being used by prior protesters ranging from Civil Rights marchers to anti-Vietnam activists as well as displayed at events like President Barack Obama’s inauguration. Even, the Anti-Defamation League added its voice in saying that “We view it as essentially an innocuous historical flag. It’s not a thing in the white supremacist movement.” None of that deterred Nike who decided to go “all in” with Kaepernick in destroying the shoes.
Nike could be right. Many Americans may care less about the decision or the symbol. Many of us do however and only time will tell what lasting damage has been done to the Nike brand.
What is interesting is that Brooks introduced the shoe towards the end of June – just before competitor Nike canceled the release of its “Betsy Ross flag” sneakers. The company however did not demand the return of all of the shoes so that they can be destroyed to satisfy Colin Kaepernick’s sensibilities.
In case you are shopping, here is one of the many sites for “The Old Glory Launch 6.”
“New Nike ad honors US women’s World Cup triumph”
By Douglass Criss, CNN Business
Updated 11:42 AM ET, Mon July 8, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/business/nike-ad-womens-world-cup-team-usa-trnd/index.html
“Atlanta (CNN Business)In its ad celebrating the US women’s national soccer team victory in the 2019 World Cup, Nike supported the team’s fight for pay equity.
“Minutes after the USWNT won its second consecutive Women’s World Cup championship — and its fourth overall — Nike (NKE) aired a 60-second ad in honor of the victory.”
Nike Manufacturing Map:
http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a paid spokesperson for Nike.
Someone is playing games. Kids.
“Nike Expands US Manufacturing Footprint”
https://www.just-style.com/news/nike-expands-us-manufacturing-footprint_id136618.aspx
My comments aren’t posting. Test.
I wish
“I wish”
As do a number of others…
Karen — don’t worry about the haters, just keep on posting!
Sure. Because those who see through the bs that Karen S posts — and call her on it — must be “haters.”
You’re being rude and obnoxious. You can disagree with someone and still be civil and respectful. Stop being a bully.
And for all his tough talk, Governor Ducey has done an about-face:
“Ducey extends welcome to Nike after company says it’s still building Goodyear plant”
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/southwest-valley/2019/07/11/nike-reaffirms-plans-goodyear-plant-gov-doug-ducey-extends-welcome/1708353001/
Excerpt:
A city report estimates the plant will bring the city $7.7 million in direct revenue and more than $483 million in economic impact in the first five years.
Goodyear spokeswoman Tammy Vo, in an email to The Republic on Thursday, praised the deal.
“Nike joins a growing list of Fortune 500 companies who proudly call Goodyear, Arizona home. We are excited to partner with them to bring high-quality jobs, breakthrough technology, and advanced manufacturing to our community,” she said.
“…Nike has seen a 2% stock increase and added nearly $3 billion in market value since cancelling the kicks.”
Jul 8, 2019, 10:25am
“Colin Kaepernick Spurs Nike’s Stock After It Pulled “Betsy Ross Flag” Sneaker”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2019/07/08/colin-kaepernick-spurs-nikes-stock-after-it-pulled-betsy-ross-flag-sneaker/#18480b057ff6
“Shares of Nike are rising after former NFL star and activist Colin Kaepernick convinced the company to pull its “Air Max 1 USA” sneakers from store shelves. Kaepernick’s concern over the shoe’s “Betsy Ross Flag” designs connection to an era of slavery resonated with investors, as Nike has seen a 2% stock increase and added nearly $3 billion in market value since cancelling the kicks.”
“Recycle Your Sneakers with Nike Reuse-A-Shoe”
Posted on April 1, 2019
https://blogs.rochester.edu/thegreendandelion/2019/04/recycle-your-sneakers-with-nike-reuse-a-shoe/
WHAT IS NIKE’S REUSE-A-SHOE PROGRAM?
We want you to go hard. And when your shoes can’t handle another mile, trip up the court, or cut across the field, we want them back.
Our Reuse-A-Shoe program recycles athletic shoes at the end of their life, giving them a new life through Nike Grind.
We make it easy for materials to live on from one product to the next—just drop your used shoes at a Nike retail store.
https://www.nike.com/help/a/recycle-shoes
“Nike Grind”:
https://www.nikegrind.com/
Excerpt:
DESIGNED FOR ATHLETES AND SUSTAINABILITY
Nike Grind materials are created from recycled athletic footwear and surplus manufacturing scraps to make performance products, ranging from new footwear and apparel to sports surfaces.
Premium sports surfaces include running tracks, courts, turf fields, gym floors, carpet padding and playgrounds.
Doesn’t that just apply to the rubber? What about leather, metal, and all the other components? Or are Nike’s using plastic synthetic leather now? It was my understanding that only some of the materials are recycled, and the rest is waste. Perhaps, if they are no longer using real leather, then more of the shoe is recyclable.
The Reuse-a-Shoe program was supposed to recycle used, unwearable shoes. Not new ones. The last time I checked, the end result are zipper pulls, gym cushioning pads, and components for only a couple of their shoe styles. However, the program never made clear if the entire process was domestic, or if they shipped recyclable shreds to China, and then bought recycled products, which may, or may not, have the Nike shreds in them. Is it like how we used to ship out plastic bottles to China, and we’d buy shoes made with recycled plastic, but they weren’t made from those exact bottles we’d sent? There is a lot of heavy marketing in the Reuse-a-Shoe program, but not enough detail.
I am curious if the reuse-a-shoe program brackets all processes in America. I hope it does, since otherwise recycling is too wasteful. Since Nike is made in China, this might not be the case. Even if every single molecule used in the Nike shoe is recyclable, which would be a change, an enormous amount of resources were wasted, including fuel, to create a brand new shoe, only to grind it down to make zipper pulls, etc. That’s if the plant is in house, and they have chain of custody of the raw materials, rather than buying recycled material from China.
There was the recent development that China is no longer accepting most of our recyclables. Rather, we are dutifully separating it out, only for it to end up in American landfills. Even when we were recycling, we were spending a lot of fossil fuels to ship recyclables over to China, create toxins melting down the plastics, and then use fossil fuels to ship the recycled end materials back. That’s a net loss.
Does not China’s reversal on recycling would impact shoe recycling materials, as well? If China is not accepting plastics anymore, then wouldn’t the recycled plastic materials in Nike shoes come from Asian plastic? I am interested, and will have to investigate this more.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/
No need Karen, Ivanka is all over it with her crusade for the environment, women, and standing up to China.
More “blah, blah, blah” from Karen.
Karen says — about something:
“I am interested, and will have to investigate this more.”
You do that, Karen.
Ad hominem, as per usual.
Do you already know if China’s ban on accepting plastic recycling does not impact Reuse-a-Shoe? Perhaps they are still accepting plastic shoe waste. As I said, I’ll have to look into it.
Or is all you have to offer childish insults? Why troll? Why not just talk?
Spend all of your obviously unlimited time down in the weeds, Karen S. Go for it.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that I am a paid spokesperson for Nike.
Nike:
https://purpose.nike.com/
PURPOSE MOVES US
We’re committed to creating a better, more sustainable future for our people, planet and communities through the power of sport.
Karen S says: July 13, 2019 at 8:04 PM
Estovir – the entire yeah, but Jewish people were murdered in Pittsburg is classic false logic commonly used by Leftists.
__________
Why don’t you spell out exactly what you mean by the “classic false logic used by Leftists” as it relates to the slaughter in Pittsburgh, Karen S.
Sure, Anonymous. The “yeah but” argument that tries to argue against one issue, by bringing up another issue, is false logic.
There is no cultural or government acceptance of anti-semitism in the United States. There are rare attacks on Jewish people, but they do not have the color of law, nor are they culturally acceptable by the American people. On the contrary, the racist attack on a synagogue was greeted by nearly universal outrage and grief in the US.
For comparison, Jewish people are banned from setting foot in Saudi Arabia. Anti-semitism does have the color of law, and cultural approval, based on the dominant religion of Islam, which teaches anti-semitism in the Qu’ran.
It’s like saying we shouldn’t complain about the dog meat festival in China because Michael Vic abused pitties. The two are not related.
Does that clalrify it for you, or are you still sticking to it? The next step in Leftist false logic is to claim I don’t care about the terrrorist attack or some other ignorant and false ad hominem.
“false logic” (We see a lot of it from Karen.)
LOL, Karen. I’ll bet you have a whole room in your house for those debate trophies of yours.
As usual, Karen spins and distorts.
Anonymous – did you notice how you failed to address a single one of my points, and resorted to ad hominem?
I sure did.
I answered your question, with facts, and you used ad hominem, because you’ve lost your argument.
It is also faulty to claim that since I point out the obvious false logic of ad hominem, upon which you rely, that I think I’m a debate captain. There are plenty of teens at the WSDC who could wipe the floor with me with an impromptu debate.
Ad hominem is universally panned as a way to escape debating facts. Every time you rely upon insults instead of reason, you are exposing yourself to ridicule.
Look Anonymous, Karen has obviously been talking Saudia Arabia all this time in her attacks on Leftists and Democrats for anti-semitism and violence. Both are really big over there and have just run amuck in Riyad. You can’t beat your wife in public there now without antifa joining in!
LOL, Karen.
But keep wasting your time.
We agree that SA is a toxic s…hole that Aayan Hirsi Ali described as the worst of the places she lived in as a girl, and that included Somalia in the midst of a revolution and a refugee camp in Kenya. Unfortunately, the US under Trump has fully bought into their Sunni jihad with the shites of Iran, no matter what they do, including murdering journalists living in America. Well hey, if Jared needs the loan, what else are we going to do?
“Left wing Democrats are thrilled given their hatred for Jews and America both…”
What a ridiculous thing to say.
Ridiculous — and false.
“Nike Sales Remain Steady After Betsy Ross Sneaker Is Pulled From Stores”
https://www.wweek.com/news/business/2019/07/10/nike-sales-remain-steady-after-betsy-ross-sneaker-is-pulled-from-stores/
I remember back in the old days when the kids in school showed more patriotism by singing ‘for liberty and orange juice for all’ in second grade. Thannks to someone’s big brother than today when it’s a food fight to see who can be the most unpatriotic or maybe these days that’s the whole idea since the left teaches their children well how to crap on everything.
I hope when you need us next time no one gets in a hurry because one gets so dejected thinking they might lose their life for the life of some of these slugs we should be deporting instead of emigrating.
I remember when we were taught when not to respond ion two much of hurry. Top priority went to families of military off at the never ending wars while lowest response time went to politicians.
But the very top of the list was preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. The one item tht had the most value.
One company’s failure is another company’s success.
This might be one of those examples where Dr Jordan Peterson advises young people to clean up their room before trying to change the world.
What Kaepernick did not understand was that Betsy Ross was a Quaker, the Quakers were abolitionist, and her flag was not a symbol of racism. Instead, Kaepernick generated enormous waste for landfills. The shoes could not even be donated to the poor, because Kaepernick wrongly attributed our patriotic symbol to racism. Brand new shoes are just going into a landfill, along with mountains of other shoes from disgusted former Nike customers. Plus, he’s wasted all that fossil fuels in the manufacturing and transportation process, and he’s contributed to Nike being branded an anti-American company. Both Kaepernick and Nike leadership look like wasteful fools at this point.
I find it ironic that Nike leadership lacked the fortitude to educate themselves and stand up for what’s right. Instead, they came across as weak and easily led, not really a good image for an athletic footwear brand.
Young people really should learn more about issues before floundering about demanding blundering change, which ends up making a situation worse.
I bought some American-made Danners recently, and will check out the Brooks website, as all my Nikes are going in the trash.
Nike is suffering a severe case of Athlete’s Head.
Karen S said:
“I bought some American-made Danners recently, and will check out the Brooks website, as all my Nikes are going in the trash.”
In a world where $$ isn’t an issue…
Anonymous:
“In a world where $$ isn’t an issue…” Next time, research before you post. On the Nike website, shoes cost between $170 and $240. On the Danner website, hiking boots cost between $170 and $380 for the most expensive versions. I bought mine on sale for $150. My last pair of Danners lasted me over a decade, and I hiked with them in hard terrain. I used to thrash Nikes in under 2 years. If I get the same wear out of my new Danners, they will cost me $15 a year. If I bought a $170 pair of Nike, they would cost me $85 a year.
Your ill informed comment is ironic, because Kaepernick made an ignorant statement about the Betsy Ross flag without taking the trouble of learning about it. However, it would appeal to similar baised people who like to make assumptions without learning the facts first.
Also, Danners are American made. I believe Nikes are made in China. My $150 went to paying American workers, helping our economy. Buying Nikes sends money to China, where working conditions are not as safe, and there are no free speech rights. We were reminded of the latter on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square.
” Buying Nikes sends money to China…”
And yet you bought those Nikes. The ones that you’re now going to toss in the trash. You’re not giving them to a charity, Goodwill, or a homeless person. You’re just tossing them in the trash. To make a point.
Good for you. Way to take a stand for America.
Anonymous:
Kaepernick sent thousands of brand new shoes to the landfill.
“Taking a stand for America.” That’s rather melodramatic. I don’t want to waste my time or money on a footwear company (or a razor) that insults its customers.
I donate clothes and shoes to organizations that help the needy. I should donate my Nikes, too, so thanks for the reminder. However, many former Nike owners are throwing them away as radioactive. This political campaign has generated a lot of waste of new and used footwear.
This is a good example of how a well-intentioned Leftist policy made things worse. Resources wasted. It didn’t actually do anything that helped a single black person, other than Kaepernick who makes money off of ill informed activism and cop hating. It gave Nike a SJW marketing gimmick to appeal to a very narrow consumer base of young, inexperienced people, often living with their parents, who don’t know how or why they should research an issue. The knee-jerk, mob mentality, entitlement generation. Who knows? This might be Nike’s niche that works out well for them. It’s certainly not mine. Now that their brand has become symbolic of anti-American ignorance, I don’t want it on my feet. Who wants to wear shoes that insult them? What man would shave with a bathroom utensil that insults them, either?
Now I like a footwear company that is passionate about…shoes. If I want to hear politics, I know where to go.
“Kaepernick sent thousands of brand new shoes to the landfill.”
Wanna back that up, Karen?
“Kaepernick sent thousands of brand new shoes to the landfill.”
I don’t think so.
Check out “Nike Grind” — and Nike’s Reuse-A-Shoe program.
“Your ill informed comment is ironic,…”
No, Karen. I have a pretty good picture, given the information you’ve provided here, over time.
Keep tossing those expensive shoes, though. It says a lot about you.
Anonymous – you should check this out. “Reading Comprehension Success in Twenty Minutes a Day”. This might help you understand your Danner/Nike comparison…and the rest of the blog.
Thanks for the reminder to donate my unpatriotic Nikes, though. Appreciate it. It would indeed be better for my anti-American shoes to be included with my regular donation. It’s too bad that so many thousands of brand new Nikes are being wasted.
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576858995/ref=asc_df_1576858995/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=343161210849&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9162448411697476387&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031761&hvtargid=pla-575781560136&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=67797265623&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=343161210849&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9162448411697476387&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031761&hvtargid=pla-575781560136
Thanks for the reminder to donate my unpatriotic Nikes, though. Appreciate it. It would indeed be better for my anti-American shoes to be included with my regular donation. It’s too bad that so many thousands of brand new Nikes are being wasted. Those who were already shipped to retailers have been sold for up to $2,000, presumably as a collector’s item. Expensive Nikes, indeed.
I’m curious if the heavy business losses from the manufacture of the wasted shoes means that prices will go up. Losses usually are included in the cost of doing business, which affects pricing. That would mean that everyone will pay for Kaepernick’s mistake, including black people. That would be ironic.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/nike-betsy-ross-flag-sneakers-price-resale
Karen weighs in anonymously (above) with more of her “insights.”
Refer to Nike’s site for info about “Nike Grind” and Nike’s Reuse-A-Shoe program.
Jul 8, 2019, 10:25am
“Colin Kaepernick Spurs Nike’s Stock After It Pulled “Betsy Ross Flag” Sneaker”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2019/07/08/colin-kaepernick-spurs-nikes-stock-after-it-pulled-betsy-ross-flag-sneaker/#18480b057ff6
“Shares of Nike are rising after former NFL star and activist Colin Kaepernick convinced the company to pull its “Air Max 1 USA” sneakers from store shelves. Kaepernick’s concern over the shoe’s “Betsy Ross Flag” designs connection to an era of slavery resonated with investors, as Nike has seen a 2% stock increase and added nearly $3 billion in market value since cancelling the kicks.”
I don’t know why, but a few times over the past few days, I’ve had trouble commenting. I’ve filled out the details section, but it posts anonymously, after a long pause. I hate when people use sock puppets, and it’s not deliberate on my part. I don’t know what the difficulty is with WordMess, or my computer.
The above comment about my shoes was from me, Karen S. Let’s see if I can get this one to go through.
I’m having trouble posting. They either don’t go through, or post anonymously. Let’s see if this one will go through. If not, I’ll try later.
Is this one of Darren Smith’s postings?
Actually, Jonathan Turley has been weighing in on the Nike controversy.
Have at it JT. It’s your right to boycott a product because you don’t like the business’ decision.
I don’t really understand why any flags are important to you and others but I support your right to boycott Nike and let the company know you don’t like what they are doing. Personally, I will just burn the flag.
Jill,
Why?
We agree that there are many things terribly wrong with this country. Yet, why burn the flag? It symbolizes the ideals of our country.
Burning it strikes me as a tad nihilistic and does not help to build bridges or mend fences.
Prairie Rose,
I consider flags to be what christians would could idolatry. The symbol of our nation is 1. the government’s actions towards people and the earth 2. the actions of its citizens in seeking justice and holding their govt. to account when it is acting in an unlawful and vicious manner towards people and the earth.
The idea of flags representing your nation comes from a war culture. Various warlords throughout history have had a flag bearing their insignia which was taken into battle. In truth, our own flag usually functions as a symbol of US warlords.
We are in a constant state of war, killing civilians and mutilating our source of life, this planet. The flag is intimately connected to those action and as such, it should be burned. We need to move past symbols and past war. We are in real trouble here. We are destroying this and other nations, along with this earth. It’s time to disavow all things that glorify war.
Anonymous, I consider flags to be apart of indoctrination into various ideologies. That’s why the indoctrination to pledge allegiance to the flag begins in grade school. There is no need for any flag and I am fine with burning any flag. Any cause is represented by the People who hold that cause to be important.
To JT and others on this blog, a flag is very important. I stand behind JT’s and any other person’s right to think this and to boycott accordingly. I also have my own right to disagree with them and to state why I disagree.
What I don’t have is a right to tell others is they may not boycott whomever they choose. That is what our govt. and state govt.’s are trying to do with those who are boycotting the actions of the Israeli govt. Such actions have no place in our society.
Great comment Jill, well said. Here’s a quotation from Arundati Roy which I recalled from what you wrote: “Flags are bits of colored cloth used to shrink-wrap people’s brains, and then as shrouds to bury the dead.”
Jill,
I can see where you’re coming from in some respects. I am torn regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. On the one hand, I see it as a way to, as a group, vocally express ‘E pluribus unum’. On the other, allegiance should not be pledged to any but God. If one has pledged allegiance to the flag/the United States, can that decrease, at all, the likelihood of one criticizing the government?
“I consider flags to be what christians would could idolatry.”
I can see that. Patriotism can easily become jingoism when treated as a sacred cow. However, most Christians still have crosses in their churches or wear crosses. It symbolizes the ethos, creeds, ideals, and behaviors they aim to live.
“The idea of flags representing your nation comes from a war culture.”
It may, but flags are also used to communicate from a distance. Black death aboard a ship had a flag to warn away other ships. What does our flag communicate? What do we *want* our flag to communicate? In some places, our flag may very well communicate war, violence, and disingenuousness. Other places, it does represent freedom and opportunity and all the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
“We need to move past symbols and past war.”
I do not think we can (or should) ‘move past symbols’. It is part of how we think. Abstraction are best represented by symbols. We are writing using symbols. Like other things, they can used for good or ill.
“The symbol of our nation is 1. the government’s actions towards people and the earth 2. the actions of its citizens in seeking justice and holding their govt. to account when it is acting in an unlawful and vicious manner towards people and the earth.”
You are right that actions speak louder than words. However, it is not the fault of the flag or any other representation of our ideals if we fail to uphold them: it is ours. We have been failing horribly on many fronts to embody our own ideals. We should be living out our ideals instead of mouthing them; that, in itself, is dishonorable.
“”I really think it’s time for human beings to stop giving inanimate objects worship”
Yes, it really is time. It has been time since Moses brought down the Ten Commandments. Yet, people have a hard time doing this. The best we can do is remind them what ought to be worshipped (God, or whatever He is to them).
I know you are an atheist, but by your actions, you are embodying belief in something.
Upholding the flag as an important symbol of the United States and its ideals does not need to degenerate into worship.
Prairie Rose, Thank you first for responding in a non hateful manner. I really appreciate the chance to have a dialog.
I would not pledge allegiance to god/dess. This nation has many god/desses, including over 800 different christian sects! The people who wrote the constitution did not share the belief in the same god and some did not believe in any god. The ideas contained in certain people’s christianity at that time, allowed some of them to hold slaves, a position no longer held by many (but not all) christians. That said I do understand your thinking as a Christian. I also like the idea of “out of many one” because it is coming together for a common good that makes for justice. However, I think this should not be an indoctrination. It should be shown in action. I dislike identity politics for this very reason.
Pledging allegiance to the flag is a form of indoctrination aimed at both children and adults. As such, it can stop people from criticizing their government and I think we can see that happening in comments which equate criticism of one’s govt. with hating it. I think the comments also show that holding a symbol as an unquestioned object of reverence has actively taken away the ability to think of what really matters about being a citizen who cares about one’s nation.
As a Christian you don’t need to wear a cross to know who you are and what your religion means to you. You can live your Christianity without any symbols at all. In fact, I read the parable of the good Samaritan as a teaching that those who most loudly proclaim their godliness are often the very people who do not embody the best values of their particular religion. It was the hated Samaritan, a person who did not worship the same god as the “godly” Pharisees, who helped the stranger.
Flag burning is a way of saying don’t reverence an object, rather, live good actions, be a good government.
A good society doesn’t need a flag. It just is a good society. It’s people would right wrongs as they arose. The symbol of that society would be it’s people’s intelligence, sense of justice and their kindness. It would be the just actions of its government. There is no need of any other symbol for such a nation.
“A good society doesn’t need a flag. It just is a good society.”
Reasons why countries still have ensigns:
To identify a vessel’s country of origin at sea.
To identify member nations of the UN?
To avoid confusion on the battlefield.
To identify a military base in a foreign country.
To identify an embassy.
To identify when an army has defeated another – the white flag of surrender, and changing the flag at a fort, city, or mound of mud.
Basically, flags are used for identification, to convey what organization is in power, and to avoid confusion. The Confederate flag conveyed at the time, for example, that a state had left the Union.
“The symbol of that society would be it’s people’s intelligence, sense of justice and their kindness.” No. None of those are symbols, but rather ideals. A symbol is a marking or design. Intelligence is not a symbol. It is an individual person’s characteristic, but has nothing whatsoever to do with either a symbol or a nation.
Without a flag, there would be a ship in our waters. Someone would look at it through binoculars. Whose ship is it? Friend or foe? Dunno. They aren’t flying any flag because they believe them to be necessary. Then hours of confusion would arise after they hailed it, found a translator, etc, until they could identify what country of origin they were from, relevant treaties, etc.
Seriously, of all the issues facing the world today, to believe that no nation or organization should have a flag is pretty funny.
“flag burning is a way of saying don’t reverence an object”. Actually, no. Burning an object is symbolic. When done in a critical manner it clearly expresses hatred. When someone burns her ex’s clothes, she is not saying she does not revere his clothes. Her actions are saying he’s a dirt bag, and she wants his possessions destroyed to ashes. Die, shirt, die! I always found it rather excessive for anyone to do that.
You seem in denial of the symbolism of your own actions. Since most of our communication is non verbal, you should be clear about what message you want to send. Otherwise, you may be communicating something you don’t intend.
What is the expectation of the citizens of a community, on the national level? It is allegiance. That is why there is a crime of treason. If allegiance was not a requirement of its citizens, then there would be no crime of treason. That is why children say the Pledge of Allegiance. If they cannot in good conscience pledge to their country, with the legal requirements thereof that govern our treason laws, then they should find a country they find more suitable. Otherwise, they feel entitled to the benefits of being a citizen, without owing it a duty of allegiance, especially in times of war.
This is also why there is a an oath of allegiance to obtain citizenship
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Honestly, the sense of entitlement now extends towards being a citizen in our country. Our country is supposed to provide for us, while we bear it no duty of allegiance in return.
That is not how societies and communities form.
It’s like you want to be Spartan, but have it be fine to go tell the Persians about a little goat trail.
“A good society doesn’t need a flag. It just is a good society. It’s people would right wrongs as they arose. The symbol of that society would be it’s people’s intelligence, sense of justice and their kindness. It would be the just actions of its government. There is no need of any other symbol for such a nation.”
********************************
Then the next one will be the first one. It won’t need a national anthem either with all its flower-clad citizens too busy singing:
Jill,
“I really appreciate the chance to have a dialog.”
Thank you. I enjoy dialogue, too.
“I would not pledge allegiance to god/dess.”
That’s one of the great things about this nation. However, based on your words and descriptions of actions, it seems you have, in a sense, pledged allegiance to Something. Goodness. The Dictates of your Conscience. Something. Otherwise, what is your aim for doing what is right? Doesn’t have to be God or Yahweh or Allah or…
“This nation has many god/desses, including over 800 different christian sects!”
Most Christians view the Christian God, Jewish God, and Muslim God to be the one in the same God, just different takes on the same Being.
“However, I think this should not be an indoctrination. It should be shown in action. I dislike identity politics for this very reason.”
Actions are very powerful. Yet, so are words, particularly if they are embodied. The words in the Bill of Rights express valuable perspectives that should be taught with words and action. Hearing eloquent words of freedom can change minds and hearts, especially when reflected in a person’s actions. That is why the Parable of the Good Samaritan was/is so stirring–Jesus lived the Truths he spoke.
Indoctrination has a very bad connotation, and the denotation can slide into a dangerous realm. It means ‘teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view’. You, too, have principles–gained from reading and much self-reflection. The problems arise when it is too narrow and the singularity of it becomes too stringent, when it stays one-sided or is prevented from becoming well-rounded. There is a fine line between indoctrination and inculcation. The rules and reasons of the game must be learned first before they can be bent or broken. Without some firm foundation, some perspective, a set of principles, how can anyone see when something is amiss?
“Pledging allegiance to the flag is a form of indoctrination aimed at both children and adults. As such, it can stop people from criticizing their government”
Potentially, but not definitely. Here we are, the both of us, who have been critical of the government, having once learned the Pledge of Allegiance. Many others here do the same, maybe not in the same way, but most here have been/are being critical of the government based on the dictates of their consciences.
“a symbol as an unquestioned object of reverence has actively taken away the ability to think of what really matters about being a citizen who cares about one’s nation.”
That is a concern. But, is it the symbol that is the problem, or the person not doing the thinking?
“As a Christian you don’t need to wear a cross to know who you are and what your religion means to you. You can live your Christianity without any symbols at all.”
True. Yet, seeing the symbol can help refocus attention when one has been straying from the ideal. It is a reminder of what the individual has been striving to live, yet, as a fallible creatures, often fail at achieving.
“I read the parable of the good Samaritan as a teaching that those who most loudly proclaim their godliness are often the very people who do not embody the best values of their particular religion.”
Yes, that can be a problem–there is arrogance and lack of compassion in that story–problems of the heart. They all believed in the same God; the Samaritan did not worship in the ‘sanctioned’ manner.
“Flag burning is a way of saying don’t reverence an object, rather, live good actions, be a good government.”
That line is too fine. ‘Be a good government’ cannot be forced or achieved through flag burning. That will not change anyone’s mind–‘oh, I’m messing up, I should be better.” It is typically too divisive, too partisan to then engage in meaningful conversation. Good government depends on good people being elected and good people helping their elected representatives make wise decisions. Changing people’s minds occurs best through respectful dialogue.
“It’s people would right wrongs as they arose. The symbol of that society would be it’s people’s intelligence, sense of justice and their kindness. It would be the just actions of its government. There is no need of any other symbol for such a nation.”
The world would be a better place if enough people had these ideas. Intelligence, wielded wisely, could be in greater supply–a sound, well-rounded education would go far to aid a general sense of what is right and fair and good.
Yet, people would create a symbol to express such actions–they are very visual and like to (perhaps even need to) encapsulate abstract, complex ideas in a symbol.
People are very flawed and limited and many have very hard lives–how best can these aims find life?
What do you recommend for the broadest possible of means of helping a wide swath of diverse people learn and embody such ideals?
Allegiance is loyalty to one’s nation. Loyalty is ‘a feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection.’ Devoted attachment and affection does not prevent or preclude warranted criticism. A true friend will not be blindly loyal, ignoring your faults but will instead help you live up to your ideals through a kind and just reprimand.
Personally, I will just burn the flag.
If you provide us your location some might stand right next to you as they burn the rainbow LGBTQI-EIEIO flag, and wildly wave the Confederate Flag.
Get back to us with those details
“LGBTQI-EIEIO flag”
******************
LOL. You did say “flag,” right?
I don’t really understand why any flags are important to you and others…
But for some reason you express your understanding of what our flag symbolizes to you. It’s an inanimate object that means many things to many people. The flag hasn’t wronged you, it is people that have done what you perceive as a wrong. That flag would symbolize a good to you if the people were to represent a good to you. The flag symbolizes an idea that is honorable regardless of the people that dishonor that idea. Your beef is with those dishonorable people, not the flag. Dishonoring the flag is a cowardly act of civil disobedience that does nothing but honor dishonorable people and dishonor honorable people.
No Olly, You can’t dishonor a flag.
My argument is that we need to move beyond symbols and start paying attention to actions. It does happen that flags have their history in the use of warlords and that use is still happening today.
I find it cult like to put objects in place of governments or people. This nation is a war cult so naturally we use a symbol of war for it.
While it is certainly true that I find our government officials and their deep state masters to be evil, unjust and to be acting completely lawlessly, I really think it’s time for human beings to stop giving inanimate objects worship.
It might be o.k. to do this if it was allowed that not everyone gave your particular cult object worship. But as you can see on this blog, it is demanded that everyone worship this cult object. I do not worship it.
Jill – so as Anonymous noted above, burning the rainbow flag can be construed as criticism of an organization you love? It wouldn’t be dishonoring the rainbow flag, or the LGBTQ, by burning it? How about burning a cross in someone’s front yard? An ex’s photos? Cards someone gave you? Would that be understood as criticizing someone you deeply love and respect? Because I believe the language of burning objects is universal. Are an ex’s photos an object of cult worship? Or would it be perfectly reasonable for someone to understand that burning a symbol expresses an insult? Offense is the intended goal of such an act, which I think you understand.
Are you still unaware of what you are expressing when you burn something?
Why do you think the flag takes the place of people? It represents the country, it is a symbol, it does not replace people.
It’s your first amendment right to burn the flag, just like any other hateful manner of expression. I support your right to do it, but I think it’s wrong. If you do not understand that burning a flag or any other symbol is intended to express hate and insult, then maybe you should think about what burning other objects expresses.
Obviously, you hate what you burn. Is that really a question?
“Personally, I will just burn the flag.”
Why not emigrate elsewhere if you loathe your own country?
Our military get traumatized, maimed, and killed defending our country. I know someone who just went through specialist training in explosive ordinance disposal for the Marines. When he ships out, he bears the responsibility of everyone’s lives under intense pressure.
A country’s flag is its symbol. Burning the flag is a grave insult to any country. That’s why terrorists burn the American flag, and why Iran had stamps of burning American flags.
Burning a flag is not contributing any meaningful constructive criticism. It is not offering ways to improvement. It’s a crass insult on the level of spitting in someone’s face. However, since we have the right of Free Speech, the very men and women who’ve bled for our country will defend your right to be hateful and ungrateful.
What Americans who despise their own country fail to understand is that the United States is the freest country in the world. Individuals have more freedom than anywhere else, which a flag burner instinctively realizes. They can criticize their government without fear. JT has outlined how freedom of speech is eroding in Western Europe, and it’s virtually nonexistent outside of Western Europe. Statistically, we’re among the least racist in the world. We pour money into the environment and foreign aid. Every time there is a famine, natural disaster, building collapse, or a Thai soccer team trapped in a cave with water rising, the US is there.
Rather than feeling blessed to live in the freest country possible for a woman to be, you burn the flag. Where’s better? Western Europe? Eastern Europe? Where you can be jailed or fined for speech? Where there are now neighborhoods deemed unsafe for Jewish people to tread? Sweden has hate speech laws, too. And once you’ve given the government the authority to define hate speech, it can do so any way it wishes. Asia? Middle East? Africa? South America?
Where is better than where you are right now? The land you hate so much you insult with burning the flag?
Without defending Jill’s ideas on flags, with which I don’t agree, she bases her position in that post on a denunciation of all flags, not hatred of the US. How Karen didn’t get that is for her to explain.
Referencing Karen’s post again, meanwhile 9 Jews were murdered in Pittsburgh in hate crime this year, not Munich or London.
meanwhile 9 Jews were murdered in Pittsburgh
Left wing Democrats are thrilled given their hatred for Jews and America both
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-ilhan-omar-overcome-her-prejudice-11562970265
Can Ilhan Omar Overcome Her Prejudice?
I was born in Somalia and grew up amid pervasive Muslim anti-Semitism. Hate is hard to unlearn without coming to terms with how you learned it.
by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
I once opened a speech by confessing to a crowd of Jews that I used to hate them. It was 2006 and I was a young native of Somalia who’d been elected to the Dutch Parliament. The American Jewish Committee was giving me its Moral Courage Award. I felt honored and humbled, but a little dishonest if I didn’t own up to my anti-Semitic past. So I told them how I’d learned to blame the Jews for everything.
Fast-forward to 2019. A freshman congresswoman from Minnesota has been infuriating the Jewish community and discomfiting the Democratic leadership with her expressions of anti-Semitism. Like me, Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia and exposed at an early age to Muslim anti-Semitism.
Some of the members of my 2006 AJC audience have asked me to explain and respond to Ms. Omar’s comments, including her equivocal apologies. Their main question is whether it is possible for Ms. Omar to unlearn her evident hatred of Jews—and if so, how to help.
In my experience it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to unlearn hate without coming to terms with how you learned to hate. Most Americans are familiar with the classic Western flavors of anti-Semitism: the Christian, European, white-supremacist and Communist types. But little attention has been paid to the special case of Muslim anti-Semitism. That is a pity because today it is anti-Semitism’s most zealous, most potent and most underestimated form.
I never heard the term “anti-Semitism” until I moved to the Netherlands in my 20s. But I had firsthand familiarity with its Muslim variety. As a child in Somalia, I was a passive consumer of anti-Semitism. Things would break, conflicts would arise, shortages would occur—and adults would blame it all on the Jews.
When I was a little girl, my mom often lost her temper with my brother, with the grocer or with a neighbor. She would scream or curse under her breath “Yahud!” followed by a description of the hostility, ignominy or despicable behavior of the subject of her wrath. It wasn’t just my mother; grown-ups around me exclaimed “Yahud!” the way Americans use the F-word. I was made to understand that Jews—Yahud—were all bad. No one took any trouble to build a rational framework around the idea—hardly necessary, since there were no Jews around. But it set the necessary foundation for the next phase of my development.
At 15 I became an Islamist by joining the Muslim Brotherhood. I began attending religious and civil-society events, where I received an education in the depth and breadth of Jewish villainy. This was done in two ways.
The first was theological. We were taught that the Jews betrayed our prophet Muhammad. Through Quranic verses (such as 7:166, 2:65 and 5:60), we learned that Allah had eternally condemned them, that they were not human but descendants of pigs and monkeys, that we should aspire to kill them wherever we found them. We were taught to pray: “Dear God, please destroy the Jews, the Zionists, the state of Israel. Amen.”
We were taught that the Jews occupied the Holy Land of Palestine. We were shown pictures of mutilated bodies, dead children, wailing widows and weeping orphans. Standing over them in military uniform were Israeli soldiers with large guns. We were told their killing of Palestinians was wanton, unprovoked and an expression of their hatred for Muslims.
The theological and the political stories were woven together, as in the Hamas charter: “The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The Stones and trees will say, “O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill me.” ’ . . . There is no solution for the Palestine question except through Jihad.”
That combination of narratives is the essence of Muslim anti-Semitism. Mohammed Morsi, the longtime Muslim Brotherhood leader who died June 17 but was president of Egypt for a year beginning in 2012, urged in 2010: “We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews”—two categories that tend to merge along with allegations of world domination.
European anti-Semitism is also a mixture. Medieval Christian antipathy toward “Christ killers” blended with radical critiques of capitalism in the 19th century and racial pseudoscience in the 20th. But before the Depression, anti-Semitic parties were not mass parties. Nor have they been since World War II. Muslim anti-Semitism has a broader base, and its propagators have had the time and resources to spread it widely.
To see how, begin at the top. Most men (and the odd woman) in power in Muslim-majority countries are autocrats. Even where there are elections, corrupt rulers play an intricate game to stay in power. Their signature move is the promise to “free” the Holy Land—that is, to eliminate the Jewish state. The rulers of Iran are explicit about this goal. Other Muslim leaders may pay lip service to the peace process and the two-state solution, but government anti-Semitism is frequently on display at the United Nations, where Israel is repeatedly compared to apartheid South Africa, accused of genocide and demonized as racist.
Media also play their part. There is very little freedom of expression in Muslim-majority countries, and state-owned media churn out anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda daily—as do even media groups that style themselves as critical of Muslim autocracies, such as Al Jazeera and Al-Manar.
Then there are the mosques, madrassas and other religious institutions. Schools in general, especially college campuses, have been an Islamist stronghold for generations in Muslim-majority countries. That matters because graduates go on to leadership positions in the professions, media, government and other institutions.
Refugee camps are another zone of indoctrination. They are full of vulnerable people, and Islamists prey on them. They come offering food, tents and first aid, followed by education. They establish madrassas in the camps, then indoctrinate the kids with a message that consists in large part of hatred for Jews and rejection of Israel.
Perhaps—I do not know—this is what happened to Ms. Omar in the four years she spent in a refugee camp in Kenya as a child. Or perhaps she became acquainted with Islamist anti-Semitism in Minnesota, where her family settled when she was 12. In any case, her preoccupation with the Jews and Israel would otherwise be hard to explain.
Spreading anti-Semitism through all these channels is no trivial matter—and this brings us to the question of resources. “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Ms. Omar tweeted in February, implying that American politicians support Israel only because of Jewish financial contributions. The irony is that the resources available to propagate Islamist ideologies, with their attendant anti-Semitism, vastly exceed what pro-Israel groups spend in the U.S. Since the early 1970s the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has spent vast sums to spread Wahhabi Islam abroad. Much of this funding is opaque, but estimates of the cumulative sum run as high as $100 billion.
Thousands of schools in Pakistan, funded with Saudi money, “teach a version of Islam that leads [to] anti-Western militancy,” according to Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy—and, one might add, to an anti-Semitic militancy.
In recent years the Saudi leadership has tried to turn away from supporting this type of religious radicalism. But increasingly Qatar seems to be taking over the Saudi role. In the U.S. alone, the Qatar Foundation has given $30.6 million over the past eight years to public schools, ostensibly for teaching Arabic and promoting cultural exchange.
For years, Qatar has hosted influential radical clerics such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and provided them with a global microphone, and the country’s school textbooks have been criticized for anti-Semitism. They present Jews as treacherous and crafty but also weak, wretched and cowardly; Islam is described as inherently superior. “The Grade 11 text discusses at length the issue of how non-Muslims should be treated,” the Middle East Media Research Institute reports. “It warns students not to form relationships with unbelievers, and emphasizes the principle of loyalty to Muslims and disavowal of unbelievers.”
The allegation that Jewish or Zionist money controls Congress is nonsensical. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that the Israeli government has spent $34 million on lobbying in Washington since 2017. The Saudis and Qataris spent a combined $51 million during the same period. If we include foreign nongovernmental organizations, the pro-Israel lobbying figure rises to $63 million—less than the $68 billion spent lobbying for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
In 2018 domestic American pro-Israeli lobbying—including but not limited to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac—totaled $5.1 million. No comparable figures are available for domestic pro-Islamist lobbying efforts. But as journalist Armin Rosen observes, Aipac’s 2018 total, at $3.5 million, was less than either the American Association of Airport Executives or the Association of American Railroads spent on lobbying. Aipac’s influence has more to do with the power of its arguments than the size of its wallet.
Now consider the demographics. Jews were a minority in Europe in the 1930s, but a substantial one, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Today Jews are at a much greater disadvantage. For each Jew world-wide, there are 100 Muslims. In many European countries—including France, Germany, the Netherlands and the U.K.—the Muslim population far exceeds the Jewish population, and the gap is widening. American Jews still outnumber Muslims but won’t by 2050.
The problem of Muslim anti-Semitism is much bigger than Ilhan Omar. Condemning her, expelling her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, or defeating her in 2020 won’t make the problem go away.
Islamists have understood well how to couple Muslim anti-Semitism with the American left’s vague notion of “social justice.” They have succeeded in couching their agenda in the progressive framework of the oppressed versus the oppressor. Identity politics and victimhood culture also provide Islamists with the vocabulary to deflect their critics with accusations of “Islamophobia,” “white privilege” and “insensitivity.” A perfect illustration was the way Ms. Omar and her allies were able to turn a House resolution condemning her anti-Semitism into a garbled “intersectional” rant in which Muslims emerged as the most vulnerable minority in the league table of victimhood.
As for me, I eventually unlearned my hatred of Jews, Zionists and Israel. As an asylum seeker turned student turned politician in Holland, I was exposed to a complex set of circumstances that led me to question my own prejudices. Perhaps I didn’t stay in the Islamist fold long enough for the indoctrination to stick. Perhaps my falling out with my parents and extended family after I left home led me to a wider reappraisal of my youthful beliefs. Perhaps it was my loss of religious faith.
In any event, I am living proof that one can be born a Somali, raised as an anti-Semite, indoctrinated as an anti-Zionist—and still overcome all this to appreciate the unique culture of Judaism and the extraordinary achievement of the state of Israel. If I can make that leap, so perhaps can Ms. Omar. Yet that is not really the issue at stake. For she and I are only two individuals. The real question is what, if anything, can be done to check the advance of the mass movement that is Muslim anti-Semitism. Absent a world-wide Muslim reformation, followed by an Islamic enlightenment, I am not sure I know.
Ms. Hirsi Ali is a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
Estovir – Ms Ali’s speech was moving.
I came up against the hard wall of Muslim anti-semitism long ago. I have had many Muslim friends, from various countries. One of my friends came from a loving family. They were so much fun to hang out with, and I was often at their house. They were very welcoming to me, a Christian. The sister’s husband was rabidly anti-semitic. It was the most extremist position I’d encountered in my lifetime. Being young and naive, I thought of course he just hasn’t been in America long enough, or hasn’t met any Jews. He was otherwise a wonderful person, and a doting father to his young children. He told me that the Jews knew about 9/11 in advance, stayed home, and warned no one who wasn’t Jewish. I showed him a list of names of the deceased, including Jewish people, but he said it was fake. He said that Jews only shop in Jewish-owned stores, so that no non-Jewish person ever gets their money. I told him I’d just been shopping in a Middle Eastern specialty store to buy the high octane Turkish tea. There are Jewish specialty stores, too, but Jewish people go shopping at regular stores just like everyone else. He didn’t believe me. He said Jews engaged in terrorist attacks and then blamed innocent Muslims. He said they were all dirty, lying, evil people and the only good Jew was a dead one. There was absolutely no reasoning with him. Since he’d been brainwashed, he resisted facts that contradicted his view. I didn’t want to push any more than I already had, as I was a guest. The family generously told him not to bring up Jews in front of me. I remember one day realizing that just about the entire family was anti-semitic, but they never spoke about Jews in mixed company. Only once in a while, something would slip. That’s the first time I think I realized that someone could have a very serious character flaw, but otherwise be a good person. I also learned that brainwashing may be permanent, and that the recipients were helpless when they learned it, and unable to help themselves from passing it on to their children, too. I learned I can’t change someone’s mind.
Ayan Hirsi Ali brought up the foundational problem. I could not undo the brainwashing of a single individual, who was otherwise a good person. How in the world can anyone counteract the brainwashing of an entire culture, when it is founded upon the Qu’ran, the literal, exact, and unchanging word of Allah? If you tell them anti-semitism is wrong, you’re saying their Qu’ran is wrong.
It seems like an unsolvable problem. The Muslims that I’ve known who don’t care about all that basically ignore about 2/3 of the Qu’ran, and just don’t think about it.
Karen the Pittsburgh murdering anti-semite wasn’t a Muslim, he was a right wing hater. You are so blind it’s embarrassing.
There seems to be some confusion about my post, or an attempt at a straw man argument.
I did not say the Pittsburg anti-semite attack was perpetrated by a Muslim. We were discussing Ayan Hirsi Ali’s speech about the difficulties of dealing with Muslim anti-semitism. We got the expected, yeah but what about Pittsburg. I’ve explained how the two are unrelated.
Estovir – the entire yeah, but Jewish people were murdered in Pittsburg is classic false logic commonly used by Leftists.
There is a dog meat festival in China. Culturally, dog meat is an approved food. Dogs are seen as livestock. Humane housing conditions and slaughter are also not a part of the culture. The culture might shift, however, as pet ownership has been increasing in China. In the UK, dogs are, on average, beloved. You can still find instances where a dog is killed. Does that equate the two culture’s views towards dogs?
Obviously not.
Efforts to combat the killing of dogs differ depending on the causes, be it a cultural liking for dog meat, overcrowded shelters, or an individual psychopath. Trying to undermine one effort in one region because of different causes in a different region is illogical.
Muslim migrant neighborhoods in the UK took their religious-based anti-semitism with them. Since they came in great numbers, it was harder to assimilate. Hence, those neighborhoods are now unsafe for Jewish people.
The rise of anti-semitism among the Left is due, in large part, to a denial of the Muslim religious foundation for anti-Semitism. This is just one of many types of anti-semitism, but it is relevant in any discussion of large scale Muslim immigration. It is important to be careful that host countries do not become unsafe for their Jewish citizens.
The problem is two-fold. Not only do you have the issue of how to overcome Muslim anti-semitism, which is structural to the Qu’ran, but people have to be willing to admit it exists before there can be meaningful discussions of a solution.
It’s so strange. There is no such pushback about the existence of any other anti-semitism, such as that found in the KKK.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/world/europe/france-new-anti-semitism.html
“There is a new profusion of kosher groceries and restaurants, and about 15 synagogues, up from only a handful two decades ago.
But for residents like Joanna Galilli, this area in northwestern Paris represents a tactical retreat. It has become a haven for many Jews who say they have faced harassment in areas with growing Muslim populations. Ms. Galilli, 28, moved to the neighborhood this year from a Parisian suburb where “anti-Semitism is pretty high,” she said, “and you feel it enormously.”
“They spit when I walked in the street,” she said, describing reactions when she wore a Star of David.”
“Nearly 40 percent of violent acts classified as racially or religiously motivated were committed against Jews in 2017, though Jews make up less than 1 percent of France’s population. Anti-Semitic acts increased by 20 percent from 2016, a rise the Interior Ministry called “preoccupying.”
In 2011, the French government stopped categorizing those deemed responsible for anti-Semitic acts, making it more difficult to trace the origins. But before then, Muslims had been the largest group identified as perpetrators, according to research by a leading academic. Often the spikes in violence coincided with flare-ups in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, according to researchers.”
What a clown. Karen ignores who is doing the racist killing in America – the right – while crying crocodile tears over leftist anti- Semitism. The murderers here are from her and Estovir’s side of the spectrum – the right.
That’s not opinion, that’s fact, and this phoney makes stuff up to pretend she cares.
“The murderers here are from her and Estovir’s side of the spectrum – the right.”
And one of the Jewish congregants of the Tree of Life synagogue, who is a Holocaust survivor, who witnessed the gunman exchanging fire with police, is also a Republican.
Stop tarring the whole Republican party as racist or anti-Semitic because of a radical outlier.
Does an outlier really equal the whole? That is the same reasoning many racists use. It’s wrong.
I am not tarring the entire GOP with anti-semites. Your buddy posters Karen and Estovir are doing that all the time with Democrats and the left. Their one way outrage is as phoney as a $# bill.
Prairie Rose – they are using a non sequitur, equating a different region and problem with another.
Estovir and I were discussing Ayan Hirsi Ali’s concerns about how to deal with Muslim anti-semitism, which is based upon their religion. It is very difficult to deal with. I remarked to Jill that there are now neighborhoods in Europe that are unsafe for Jewish people to walk, because migrants brought their anti-semitism with them.
Other posters used whataboutisms, trying to conflate a single disturbed domestic terrorist to Ali’s speech, which is a completely different situation that has nothing to do with Muslim anti-semitism.
Does American anti-semite mass shooter in any way negate that Muslim anti-semitism is a very thorny issue to deal with? No, of course not. And of course the US government or American culture does not condone anti-semitism, as is done in the ME. Which is why whataboutisms don’t work. It’s pretty sad when someone uses a domestic tragedy to get people to ignore the difficulties in how to improve Muslim anti-semitism both in the ME and Western Europe. How strange that there would be anyone who would want to derail any discussion on how to combat any form of anti-semitism. It does say something about those who do so, however.
That is why there was silence when I said that Michael Vic’s abuse of pit bulls in no way undermines criticism of China’s dog meat market. The two have nothing to do with each other, and in no way weakens the seriousness of the issue. They don’t respond to the point because there is nothing to say, so they insult the poster.
No one ignored the crime in the synagogue, obviously. People just say that to make believe that their point makes any sense.
The lack of reading comprehension of either my, or Estovir’s post of Ayah Hirsi Ali’s speech are astounding. The conclusions drawn are so completely off it is astounding.
I didn’t expect Karen to express any self knowledge, or back up her BS about how the problem with violence and racism in this country is a left-wing, Democratic problem. That’s all she ever talks about even though the deadliest attacks here are from the right. I read the atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s “Infidel” and I learned all about the stone age thinking she grew up with and which she bravely shed. We don’t live in Riyad, though there might be a Trump Hotel there eventually, we live in the US where Jews are killed the western way, by right wing racists, not that Karen has ever expressed here any condemnation of that, along with her antifa obsession.
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576858995/ref=asc_df_1576858995/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=343161210849&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9162448411697476387&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031761&hvtargid=pla-575781560136&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=67797265623&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=343161210849&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9162448411697476387&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031761&hvtargid=pla-575781560136
It obviously hasn’t helped you, Karen.
I’d be interested to see examples of this “hatred of Jews and America” coming from left-wing Democrats.
See Mlles. Tlaib and Omar. This isn’t that difficult.
Do you have a link to a good-quality, independent study that confirms this?
Karen,
You assume so much. You assume that I don’t love my nation because I criticize it. That’s an oldie but baddie. The people who are the summer patriots worship their nation w/o question. I am a citizen and it is not only my right but my duty to question my govt.
What makes you assume I don’t come from a military family? So what if I don’t? Not every military person feel as you do. If you don’t believe me, check out Veterans for Peace! Holy Crap Karen, it’s a sad day when questioning one’s nation and protesting it is outlawed by “flag snowflakes”. Live up to this nation’s highest values! That means freedom of speech, freedom to protest, freedom to question and freedom to take a heart felt action you personally don’t agree with.
Jill:
“You assume that I don’t love my nation because I criticize it.” That’s like saying you love someone even though you just spit in their face.
What you do not seem to understand is that burning the flag is not just criticism. It’s the worst possible insult to a country possible, on a par with spitting in someone’s face.
It’s not constructive criticism, which I respect.
I’m not a “flag snowflake”. I support your right to be as hateful and insulting towards our country as you choose to be. I don’t agree with you. If you think burning the flag is merely criticism, perhaps you don’t understand the significance. It’s like dropping a crucifix in a jar of urine, and thinking all you’re doing is criticizing Christianity.
You do not seem to comprehend the significance of your actions. Most human communication is non verbal, and you don’t appear to understand what you’re saying with your actions. Regardless, I support your right to be wrong.
Karen,
I don’t think you realize what you are doing. You are so dedicated to this inanimate object’s reverence that you are willing to jettison the actual rights of your fellow citizens. This is exactly why I believe flags need to be burned and why they aren’t really a good idea at all.
You should defend your constitution. Telling people they cannot criticize their govt. is unconstitutional. It is also wrong. You don’t seem to understand that It is often the people who love their nation the most who want it to live up to what it can and should be, while those who are most obedient and consider themselves the “super patriots” will accept the atrocities committed by their government in their name. Super patriots are the good germans/good americans.
Here are some things I think are very wrong with this nation: torture, wars of aggression, abridging the Constitution, commission of war crimes, detention without trial, mass surveillance. If you accept these things quietly, you will help destroy your own nation. I absolutely refuse to remain silent while these abuses continue. I will not stand by and watch my nation destroyed.
The worst possible insult to a nation is dishonoring its highest and best values and allowing it to engage in illegal and horrific crimes. Burning a flag is in no way comparable to killing civilians, torturing other people, and destroying one’s own Constitution.
You are exactly like left wing snow flakes who cannot stand to hear someone who thinks differently than them. You earlier said if I criticized my govt. I should leave my nation. This is being a “flag snowflake”. You want to make certain you don’t hear from people who don’t think like you. (I do see that you have somewhat changed your position latterly, but that is what you said earlier and that is what I responded to.)
Demanding your govt. obey the rule of law and be a good government is not a rational definition of “hating” your government. It’s called being a citizen.
Your and other’s focus on a symbol has distracted you from behaving in a decent way towards your fellow citizen. It is also distracting you from standing against wrong doing by your government. The symbol should be burned until people understand that the symbol is not what matters. What matters is righting the wrongs of one’s government.
This is exactly why I believe flags need to be burned and why they aren’t really a good idea at all.
Jill doesn’t recognize a non sequitur. Big surprise.
I find it telling that Jill does not burn the rainbow flag, or Mexico’s flag, or the Palestinian flag, Earth Day flag, or any other flag than the American flag. If flags need to be burned because they aren’t a good idea, then that would apply to all flags.
She should have at it. If this is what she believes, and she’s willing to do so to the American flag, then she should put her money where her mouth is and do it to all flags. In public where, presumably, everyone will understand her intended symbolism of loving, respectful criticism. We will await the result on Youtube.
If she won’t, then she hasn’t been honest with herself, and that’s a bad thing.
Says the arm-chair critic — the self-important “This is absurd…” — changing the world one haughty comment at a time.
“You are so dedicated to this inanimate object’s reverence that you are willing to jettison the actual rights of your fellow citizens.”
What in the world are you talking about? I have said, repeatedly that I support your right to express yourself regardless of disagreeing with you. I have said our military has died to defend your right.
Please explain exactly how I want to erode anyone’s rights?
You said I assumed you hated our country because you burned the flag. You said you loved it, and were merely criticizing it. I explained that you do not understand, or are not being honest about, the symbology of your own actions. I never said you didnt or shouldn’t have the right to do it. A “snowflake” seeks to remove all “triggers”. I don’t seek to hinder your actions at all, but rather I am calling you on baloney.
Were you to arrive at your next work performance review to find your boss burning your photograph, would you view it as loving, respectful criticism? The insult would have zero to do with your boss’s right to burn your photograph.
Please do not go the route of making dishonest statements about my own beliefs to defend yourself. You have every right to burn our flag, and say it’s constructive, respectful criticism. I have every right to say that you’re wrong, the symbolism of your act is hateful, and explain how I arrived at that conclusion. You have the right to ignore the obvious example of how you would realize other instances of burning something expresses hatred, thereby undermining your explanation that it’s criticism of something you love.
I did not say you should leave your country because you criticize it. My exact words were “Why not emigrate elsewhere if you loathe your own country?” It’s like burning your boyfriend’s photographs but staying in the relationship. The symbology of your own act expresses extreme hatred. You would understand this if you replaced the flag with any other symbol. So my question is valid. If you truly loathe your country enough to actually burn its effigy, why are you here?
“Your and other’s focus on a symbol has distracted you from behaving in a decent way towards your fellow citizen.” Okay. Explain exactly how I am focused on a symbol, which has made me not behave decent towards anyone. Hint. Disagreeing with someone is still decent behavior. Proceed.
You ignore that the symbolism of burning expresses hatred.
You ignored my honest question of why you remain in a country that you hate. Your explanation that you really love it makes no sense given your actions, for the reasons cited above. Perhaps you are merely abusive, then, towards what you love, and defend insult as constructive criticism.
Then you falsely claimed I desired to undermine anyone’s rights.
How interesting, that you want the right to “criticize” your country but take great offense to my mere words criticizing your actions, with supporting facts. What would you do if I stood in front of you and repeatedly burned your image? By your own logic, I would merely be expressing loving criticism. Perhaps counter protesters to flag burning would burn images of what matters to the flag burners themselves. Then everyone is throwing ash at the same low, intellectual level. It’s kind of like cavemen arguing.
Personally, I’d prefer constructive criticism that actually accomplishes something, but it’s not for everyone, apparently. But the Left does love its ad hominem, which is such a poor substitute for logic.
“IN THEIR OWN WORDS: COMPENDIUM OF VETERANS’ QUOTES AGAINST THE FLAG DESECRATION AMENDMENT”
https://www.aclu.org/other/their-own-words-compendium-veterans-quotes-against-flag-desecration-amendment
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576858995/ref=asc_df_1576858995/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=343161210849&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9162448411697476387&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031761&hvtargid=pla-575781560136&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=67797265623&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=343161210849&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9162448411697476387&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031761&hvtargid=pla-575781560136
Read my comment again. If you still have trouble, buy the book on reading comprehension.
“I have said, repeatedly that I support your right to express yourself regardless of disagreeing with you. I have said our military has died to defend your right.”
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576858995/ref=asc_df_1576858995/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=343161210849&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9162448411697476387&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031761&hvtargid=pla-575781560136&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=67797265623&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=343161210849&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9162448411697476387&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031761&hvtargid=pla-575781560136
Honest, non-trolling question: of the countries the US military is currently (i.e. right now) fighting in, which ones have fired a shot at the US?
More questions:
1. Why does the USA have only two political parties?
2. Why does the USA not have paid maternity leave?
3. Why is public transport in the USA less prevalent than freeways?
Also, make of the following what you will:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americans-rights-are-literally-vanishing-at-the-airport/
There’s more where that comes from.
Digby Dogood,
How many of those in the country of Afghanistan had “fired a shot at our military” before 9-11?
How many after 9-11, dumbass?.
I can believe that there is “more where that comes from”, you fool.
I wasn’t thinking of the technicalities. My question was a simple one asking which countries (i.e. governments, not individual people and groups thereof) fired a shot at American soil. While your response partially answers my question, however, I was not at all expecting an insult thrown at me.
1. Why does the USA have only two political parties?
Because polarities and spectra in various realms tend to be highly correlated with each other. There isn’t a vigorous constituency for a third party. Also, our parties have been somewhat protean in their organizing principles. The transactions cost of setting up a new party is less than that of establishing yourself in one of the existing parties. In addition, we have a single-member-constituency / first-past-the-post electoral system, which inhibits the establishment of new parties.
2. Why does the USA not have paid maternity leave?
Because ‘paid maternity leave’ imposes costs on some parties to benefit other parties. Some want it some do not. Those who want it are not numerous enough and intense enough and well-organized enough to prevail over inertia.
3. Why is public transport in the USA less prevalent than freeways?
1. Community preferences 2. Institutional interests at the local level 3. Gatekeeper preferences during a seminal period in urban development 4. Path dependency and 5. mispricing of road transport services.
Digby:
First, let me preface this by saying that criticism of the country is healthy and should be encouraged. I’ve criticized Obamacare frequently, for example. My comment that we live in the freest country in the world does not mean it is above criticism. The bureaucracy alone is onerous.
“Honest, non-trolling question: of the countries the US military is currently (i.e. right now) fighting in, which ones have fired a shot at the US?”
Are you talking about military bases, or active military operations? Do you want information on allies, or just the US?
Paid maternity leave is an interesting question. As a mother myself, I think paid maternity leave is a marvelous benefit, but I do not think it is appropriate to be applied universally, and would have unintended consequences. I think it should be voluntarily offered by employers, because it is not conducive to all jobs.
For instance, if it became universally required, then restaurants would have to pay servers for maternity leave. This would exponentially increase labor costs. Raising the minimum wage caused the closure of many restaurants, and increased the prices of remaining ones. Every customer has to pay for that.
The consequences would have to depend upon the benefit. Is it your actual job that must be held open, or any job? Is it 2 weeks, or 12? Canada allows up to 12 months, which would be devastating would that be a universal requirement here. There was a scandal in Canada years ago when young people worked the few weeks required to earn unemployment, and then took off the rest of the year to go play at taxpayer expense. 12 months maternity leave in Canada had negative outcomes on women’s careers. If you can’t afford to essentially pay for 2 employees, one to be on leave and the other filling in, then you will preferentially hire someone who’s not going to have a family.
How could a CEO be absent for 12 weeks, let alone 12 months? Or a neurosurgeon? Or a military general? It would discourage the hiring of women or advancement of childbearing age for any job that would create serious problems if an employee could be gone for 12 weeks or longer, up to every year, if the woman has her children in quick succession. There are jobs that it just wouldn’t work.
Work/life balance is very important. Not all jobs are conducive to that. Not all employers can stay in business offering that kind of benefit. Where maternity leave is universal, it has seen a correlating decrease in hiring women for top positions.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that every single job out there can stand empty, or use a replacement, for long periods of time.
https://hbr.org/2018/09/do-longer-maternity-leaves-hurt-womens-careers
“Evidence from a variety of countries reveals that the longer new mothers are away from paid work, the less likely they are to be promoted, move into management, or receive a pay raise once their leave is over. They are also at greater risk of being fired or demoted. Length of leave can be a factor in the perceptions of co-workers as well – women who take longer leaves are often seen as less committed to their jobs than women who take much shorter leaves. This trade-off undercuts a major goal of legislating national parental leave policies: ensuring that women don’t have to choose between motherhood and career success.”
If a man or woman is not physically there on the job, but out on long leaves, then they are not completely projects, or proving themselves for raises. In such a manner, after 10 years, a woman who took no maternity leave would be at a different pay scale and position than one who repeatedly did. It would be unfair to expect both to be paid the same, when both did not put in the same hours of work.
Work life balance sometimes means making choices and sacrifices. It is a false promise that you can have it all. If you want to work 60 hours a week to become a CEO, you’re going to miss your children’s milestones, and have to hire a caregiver when they are sick. Or if you keep taking leave, you’re not putting in the 60 hours a week that your competition is for that promotion.
While I think maternity leave is great where it can be offered, I also do not consider it a human right to demand an employer pay you to stay home for up to a year at a time, every time you have a child, and keep your job open for you, AND complain about a wage gap. If an employer can afford it, and the job is not vital to stay filled, then great. There is a general, growing feeling that it is the taxpayer’s responsibility, or an employer’s, to pay for an individual, over and above the poor who truly need help.
Active military operations.
Just the US.
I asked if you wanted information on the US, because we have made alliances. One of the purposes of an alliances is mutual protection, such as when those alliances formed two world wars, or when an ally intervenes when someone is invaded.
There has been no attack on American soil by a foreign government since Pearl Harbor. As you are aware, there have been many terrorist attempts, and some successful attacks, by organizations with the support of some foreign governments, a couple of which actively hid the organization from discovery by the US.
There was a Russian incursion into US airspace off the coast of CA when President Reagan was visiting. We went as far as scrambling our jets, but the crisis was narrowly averted. We have repeatedly intercepted Russians in our airspace, even recently. Plus, buzzing our aircraft carriers seems to be a Russian pastime. There is a game of chicken going on underneath the public’s nose.
Karen might be interested to know that according to the FBI and our Intelligence agencies, as well as evidence presented by the Mueller report, there was an attack on our election process by the Russians, and our president has sided with the Russians version of events publicly on an international stage at least twice – they didn’t do it – and has still done nothing about that or future attacks predicted by the same agencies. This may be the reason for Amb. Darroch’s comments to his superiors regarding Trump’s possibly being owned by the Russians, or perhaps he knows of more evidence
Why is public transport less prevalent than freeways?
Because we are an enormous country. We are not concentrated, like in London, where you can get anywhere, quickly, via the Tube. (I really hate those parts where the tunnel narrows so that all you see out the window is cement pressing in.) Public transport works in dense cities, and university towns where everyone’s going to the same place.
I do not wish our country to force everyone to move into cities. Los Angeles policies appear to be trying to do exactly that. (Road Diets, gas taxes, proposed mileage taxes, proposed sustainability plans that would prohibit any more building or renovation in fire zones, which are anywhere outside of the city.)
Since we are widespread, it takes for bloody ever to get anywhere via rapid transit, plus you have to sit next to people who are sick, or crazy, and/or homeless, now. It wasn’t so years ago. Homeless people with bed bugs (body lice) get onto buses sometimes and require fumigation. There are tent encampments at some bus stops. Or people are hacking and coughing during flu season. Plus it takes hours to get somewhere that it takes 45 minutes to in a car.
I prefer the freedom to run my errands in my own car. Years ago, my husband considered taking the train in to his shop, but he discovered it would take hours and he’d have to change trains, and the destination still was 5 miles away. Out here in CA, we have a major homeless problem. There are right to sleep, right to park, and the homeless rights which prevent police from doing much of anything to force the homeless to go to a shelter. Most reject housing because they say they don’t want to be told what to do.
Out here in CA, most of the buses are nearly empty, just wasting fuel.
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-newport-beach-homeless-tents-20190711-story.html I seriously wonder how long a reporter had to search to find someone like “Ghost” whose only problem appears to be that he became homeless after a divorce, and can’t get a job without an address. Since he’s not at a homeless shelter, I guess he can’t use that address. I occasionally meet lucid people who are homeless, but the overwhelming majority are drug addicts, alcoholics, and/or have mental problems. There was this one guy who kept getting into violent arguments with…himself, in front of Target. He even came to blows with himself at one point. Mentally stable, non drug addicted homeless who are just down on their luck are a lot easier to help.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-ridership-20180124-story.html
“Nearly two-thirds of former Metro riders told the agency in a 2016 survey that they stopped riding because transit service was inefficient, inconvenient or difficult to reach. An additional 29% said they stopped riding because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable on buses and trains. The vast majority of those people now drive alone.”
Another question:
Apparently this commentator doesn’t seem to agree, and I doubt Julian Assange might either. Just to ask, do you know the details of Assange’s arrest?
Thanks.
I don’t think that Assange was “critisizing his govenment”.
I didn’t see any indication that he was badmouthing Australia.
It’s one thing to criticize a govenment, and it’s another thing to hide out in an embassy year after year to avoid extradiction rape charges, illegal hecking and publication of classified material, etc.
Free speech in criticizing “his govenment” is one thing, this is not about that.
Hope that clears it up for you
“…It’s another thing to hide out in an embassy year after year to avoid extradiction rape charges, illegal hecking and publication of classified material, etc.”
Get your facts straight, Tom Nash. What garbage.
You don’t challenge any facts that I presented. You can address any seperate complaints that you may have to Tom Nash?, but try staying on tract here.
Spell-check is a beautiful thing.
You post nothing but garbage, anonymous clown with 50? nonsensical comments just today.
You could start with this:
“Dismantling the Swedish ‘Rape’-Narrative against Julian Assange”
https://medium.com/@njmelzer/response-to-open-letter-of-1-july-2019-7222083dafc8
Did Nike clear your version of the Assange legal issues?
More than one person posts as “Anonymous.” Use your scroll bar if don’t want to read something.
With so many people using the name anonymous, there would be mostly scrolling and no continuity between exchanges if half of these comments are scrolled past.
Maybe the most prolific anonymous here could group all of his/her speeches in one section, let it all out at once, too avoid wasting everyone’s time?
Feel free not to read what I post.
Jill, it’s not illegal for you to burn the national flag. No one can stop you, legally.
Sad that you feel the need or urge to burn the flag of a nation which guarantees you that right.
How about at Jill’s next workplace performance review, she enters her supervisor’s office to find her photo being burned in an ashtray as an expression of loving, respectful criticism.
You’re expecting out of Jill a capacity for reflection and moral reasoning the is not there and, with scant doubt, never will be there. Some people are arrested development cases and maintain an adolescent mentality their whole lives. Nothing you can do for them. Natacha’s not much different, just more prolix and more given to venting in ways which reflect anxieties and resentments of a (feminine) personal nature.
And you’re an old fool.
Diane, other people want to use the assisted living center’s computer.
And yet they can’t. Why? Because TIA is hogging it, as s/he often does.
Agree or disagree with her, Jill’s posts do not lack “moral reasoning”, nor are they are somehow “feminine”. The same can be said for Natasha’s posts. Assigning character flaws to those one disagrees with politically is for fools with weak arguments like TIA, though admittedly in his case, an inability to get a date or keep a wife seem likely in his past.
There isn’t much reasoning in them, as anyone who reads them can see. The left is populated with liars and with people who cannot tell the difference between reasoning and emotional outburst.
There are hardly any normal people who comment here from a portside perspective. Shill, Enigma, and Appleton are as close as you get to normal. You want to be respected, be respectable. You’re not, and people notice that.
“The left is populated with liars and with people who cannot tell the difference between reasoning and emotional outburst.”
Nonsense from TIA x 9.
Old or not, what a weak fool.
A trump supporter lecturing about acting “respectable” is some funny s…..
We make the mistake of believing that because the CEO of Nike has done a good job of adding shareholder value up to this point, then he must be competent in all areas.
On the contrary, inspite of his other skills, the CEO is a social retard.
Now Nike shareholders will pay the price for over estimating his skills.
Nike’s customers are younger than the average American person. That means that more of them are Leftists than the average population. Many haven’t paid taxes, or moved out of their parents’ house, or understood that other people have free speech, too, or that the world doesn’t need to change to protect their feelings. Many are teenagers. Young, and inexperienced are the average athletic shoe customer.
Will pandering to an ignorant base work out for them? Perhaps anti-American will be their niche, leaving plenty of other niches for athletic shoe companies who want to just sell shoes, or even show patriotism.
I think most of their sales are abroad. It would be agreeable if all of their sales were abroad.
It would be right and just if Nike’s assets abroad were nationalized by countries with less reverence for individual property rights than the nation they help their historically illiterate spokesjock slander with bogus charges of racism.
“It would be agreeable if all of their sales were abroad.”
Another American (I presume) who can’t see the forest for the trees.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241692/nikes-sales-by-region-since-2007/
monumentcolorado says: July 13, 2019 at 9:13 AM
We make the mistake of believing that because the CEO of Nike has done a good job of adding shareholder value up to this point, then he must be competent in all areas.
On the contrary, inspite of his other skills, the CEO is a social retard.
Now Nike shareholders will pay the price for over estimating his skills.
___________________
“…Nike has seen a 2% stock increase and added nearly $3 billion in market value since cancelling the kicks.”
Jul 8, 2019, 10:25am
“Colin Kaepernick Spurs Nike’s Stock After It Pulled “Betsy Ross Flag” Sneaker”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2019/07/08/colin-kaepernick-spurs-nikes-stock-after-it-pulled-betsy-ross-flag-sneaker/#18480b057ff6
“Shares of Nike are rising after former NFL star and activist Colin Kaepernick convinced the company to pull its “Air Max 1 USA” sneakers from store shelves. Kaepernick’s concern over the shoe’s “Betsy Ross Flag” designs connection to an era of slavery resonated with investors, as Nike has seen a 2% stock increase and added nearly $3 billion in market value since cancelling the kicks.”
My brand for many years and I love their anti-PC.
Great to see you, Nick!
I am also glad the Brooks shoe has the colors of the flag but did not stitch the flag onto the shoe. This version does not trample on flag etiquette. (Pun intended)
Peeper is still suffering from victimhood.
For those of us who are still upset with the decision of Nike….For those who are enraged by Nike’s decision…..As I have stated earlier, I was flabbergasted….
Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami had some words to say about the immigration crisis that apply to your being upset, enraged, flabbergasted.
While he admitted that the looming crackdown adds new pressure and demands, Wenski insists that “the drama is constant,” – repeating once more a refrain he’d previously used, this time with added emphasis: “What ebbs and flows is the attention we decide to pay to it.”
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/07/13/miami-archbishop-says-trump-rhetoric-causing-fear-in-migrant-community/
Wenski noted that Obama deported 400,000 immigrants and says the Trump decision is only getting attention now even if Obama was worse but nary a thought from people.
Nike is a greedy corporation. It was lucky to become successful decades ago by breaking the dominance of Converse, Adidas and others. Since then the costs for raw materials to make their plethora of shoe models, at cheap labor in Asia, charge outrageous prices for stupid consumers to willingly purchase them, all these make your current rage and being flabbergasted amusing if not indicative of the pathology in our culture. Nike’s business practices, like so many other American corporations, are the more scandalous reality. Your selective rage about this one instance with Nike is woefully shortsighted. Americans should stop being the world leader of frivolous, shallow, gluttonous consumerism and be instead role models of integrity, moral rectitude and self-regulation.
At home we stopped buying Nike in the 1990s when it was clear their products were overrated.
Wenski:
Reflecting on Pope Francis’s recent Mass on the 6th anniversary of his visit to Lampedusa – the small Italian island where he remembered the estimated 20,000 migrants who have died crossing the Mediterranean – Miami’s archbishop says “Lampedusa has been happening off the coast of Florida for the past 50 years.”
“It merely ebbs and flows from our consciousness,” he sighed.