Race, lets make this serious! It is nearly 2013.

[JTA]

I've changed my mind. I think Kaepernick should stand for the national anthem.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... rking.html

Just as important, Kaepernick has made his fellow Americans think about what they’re standing for, and why. It wasn’t typical for NFL players to stand for the national anthem until 2009—before then, it was customary for players to stay in the locker room as the anthem played.* A 2015 congressional report revealed that the Department of Defense had paid $5.4 million to NFL teams between 2011 and 2014 to stage on-field patriotic ceremonies; the National Guard shelled out $6.7 million for similar displays between 2013 and 2015.

Since it's a completely empty gesture due to the NFL being paid to force players to do it.

What a joke.

[JTA]

Wonder how NFL fans would feel knowing that all the pomp and fanfare around the flag only happens because the NFL received a large payout?

[billy.pilgrim]

Wonder how NFL fans would feel knowing that all the pomp and fanfare around the flag only happens because the NFL received a large payout?

They would love it that much more. After all, when you find out your patriotism is bullshit, double down and then double down some more and then get trump to double down some more and then bounce to the next christmas offense, or muslim offense, or whatever fox says to do next

[Vrede too]

Interesting aspect, I never knew:

Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery

[rstrong]

One of the world's great mysteries has been the fate of Sir John Franklin's 1845 expedition to chart the north-west passage. His flag-ship HMS Erebus was finally found two years ago. His second ship, HMS Terror, was found almost fully intact just this month.

The good ship Terror took part in the bombardment of Fort McHenry, which inspired the US national anthem.

[rstrong]

Note: I wrote "the good ship Terror" because it sounded funny in a "that is SO wrong" sort of way. Which leads to another thought: Reagan, Bush I, Ford, Kennedy, Truman, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Lincoln and Washington have aircraft carriers named after them. (Carter served on submarines, so he has a Seawolf class sub named after him.)

If Trump wins, a couple decades from now America will be enforcing foreign policy with the aircraft carrier USS Trump.

[Vrede too]

No ships named for LBJ or Nixon? Think there will be ones named for Obama, Shrub and Bill Clinton? If Hillary wins, maybe they'll just go with the USS Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I would be terrified of serving aboard the USS Ford. Sometimes, fate should not be tempted.

[rstrong]

No ships named for LBJ or Nixon?

LBJ is getting one of those fancy new Zumwalt-class destroyers. I think the USS Ford fills in for Nixon.

[Vrede too]

Ah, it's not yet mentioned on LBJ's Wiki page. Thanks.

There's some irony in naming a destroyer after LBJ given that it was US destroyers that were involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incidents, that the US destroyers were in fact engaged in hostile activities at the time and were thus legit targets, that the 2nd North Vietnamese "attack" never happened, and that this pile of stinking dung was dishonestly used to justify a disastrous war.

[rstrong]

There's some irony in naming a destroyer after LBJ given that it was US destroyers that were involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incidents, that the US destroyers were in fact engaged in hostile activities at the time and were thus legit targets, that the 2nd North Vietnamese "attack" never happened, and that this pile of stinking dung was dishonestly used to justify a disastrous war.

It's a tad more complicated than that.

The "hostile activities" were "hostile" only in that North Vietnam claimed a 12 mile limit on its territorial waters. The U.S. did not recognize this limit. While 12 miles is standard now, at the time the 3 mile limit was normal. The destroyers were NOT "legit targets" any more than US ships in the South China Sea off the Philippines are "legit targets" for China today.

While the second attack never happened, it wasn't a deliberate fabrication. In rough weather and heavy seas, the U.S. destroyers received radar, sonar, and radio signals that they believed signaled another attack by the North Vietnamese navy. For two hours the ships fired on radar targets and maneuvered vigorously amid electronic and visual reports of enemies.

But the same night Captain Herrick of the Maddox sent a cable stating that there may actually have been no Vietnamese craft in the area. It was US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara who failed to inform President Johnson that Captain Herrick had changed his mind about the alleged North Vietnamese attack. LBJ's speech that day was based on what he had been told.

[Vrede too]

Whether and when LBJ knew doesn't make it any less dishonest. Plus:

... On August 6, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara testified before a joint session of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees. He stated that the Maddox had been "carrying out a routine mission of the type we carry out all over the world at all times" and denied that it had been in any way involved in South Vietnamese patrol boat raids on the offshore islands of Hon Me and Hon Nieu on the nights of July 30 and July 31. The administration did not, however, disclose that the island raids, although separate from the mission of the Maddox, had been part of a program of clandestine attacks on North Vietnamese installations called Operation Plan 34A. These operations were carried out by U.S.-trained South Vietnamese commandos under the control of a special operations unit of the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam called the Studies and Operations Group.

... An investigation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee revealed that the Maddox had been on an electronic intelligence collection mission off the North Vietnamese coast. It also learned that the U.S. Naval Communication Center in the Philippine Islands, in reviewing ships' messages, had questioned whether any second attack had actually occurred....

[rstrong]

The first certainly doesn't sound good. But if its South Vietnamese doing the raids, and Americans aren't directly taking part in them, then attacks on American ships aren't justified. Supplying arms and assistance - outside of any specific operations - is something America, Canada, Russia and everyone else does. Russian military weapons and advisors to Iraq during the Gulf Wars for example didn't lead to attacks against Russia.

"Intelligence trawlers" are unwelcome, but not hostile. Soviet SIGINT and ELINT ships routinely shadowed American carrier groups and parked off Cape Canaveral during launches. The US, Russia, China and others do it without any shooting.

[Vrede too]

But there was shooting.

"South Vietnamese doing the raids" as "part of a program of clandestine attacks on North Vietnamese installations ... under the control of a special operations unit of the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam called the Studies and Operations Group."

So, if Russian ships were gathering electronic intelligence with the specific intent of aiding ongoing violent attacks by rightwing Americans on liberal Vancouver that were "under the control of" the Russian military, you wouldn't consider that a hostile act by Putin?

[rstrong]

"South Vietnamese doing the raids" as "part of a program of clandestine attacks on North Vietnamese installations ... under the control of a special operations unit of the U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam called the Studies and Operations Group."

Fair enough. If Americans were controlling the attacks (rather than providing general assistance, not to specific attacks), then they were a "legit target."

So, if Russian ships were gathering electronic intelligence with the specific intent of aiding ongoing violent attacks by rightwing Americans on liberal Vancouver that were "under the control of" the Russian military, you wouldn't consider that a hostile act by Putin?

You mean like Russian military hardware and GPS jammers supplied to Iraq during the Gulf Wars? American satellite and electronic intelligence - and lots more - supplied to Britain during the Falklands war? Russian anti-aircraft missiles, trucks and more in Vietnam? American Stinger missiles and other munitions and aid to anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan?

Actually, the US has been pretty good about that sort of thing where Canada is concerned. It cut off support for the Fenian Raids, raids into Canada by up to 1300 soldiers at a time from an Irish Republican militia of based in the US.

[Vrede too]

I may not like those things and do consider them "hostile", but standing immediately offshore for the purpose of gathering intel to assist raids carried out by a US proxy acting under the direction of the US Military Assistance Command is an order of magnitude more hostile and does make the direct perps a predictable and arguably justifiable target. I say "arguably" because one can suppose that it was a deliberate provocation, if not those nights some other ones, intended to lead to massive US intervention and North Vietnam fell into the trap.

A question I was composing when you posted, no longer aimed at you but worth mentioning:
If what we were doing is what "everyone else does ... not hostile ... routine", why do you suppose that Congress wasn't informed of it during the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution debate?

The Fenian raids are interesting, I'd never heard of them. But, they would have been more comparable if the US government was an active sponsor of them.

Pembina Raid (1871)

... O'Neill resigned from the Fenians to lead the invasion, which was planned in Saint Paul, Minnesota, to invade Manitoba near Winnipeg. About 35 men, led by John O'Neill, William B. O'Donoghue, and John J. Donnelly, hoped to join forces with Louis Riel's French-Indian Métis. On October 5, O'Neill's force managed to capture a Hudson's Bay Company post and a Canadian customs house which they believed to be just north of the international border. A U.S. survey team had determined the border was two miles further north, placing the Hudson's Bay post and the customs house both inside U.S. territory. O'Neill, J. J. Donnelly and ten others were taken prisoner near Pembina, Dakota Territory, by U.S. soldiers led Captain Loyd Wheaton.

The farcical raid was doomed from the very start. It actually took place inside the United States, and the Métis under Riel had signed a pact with the British just as the invasion began. Riel and his Métis captured O'Donoghue and gave him to U.S. authorities....

Opps.

... The greatest impact of the Fenian raids was in the developing a sense of Canadian nationalism and leading the provinces into a Confederation. This was seen as necessary for survival and self-defense; the raids showed Canadians that safety lay in unity and were an important factor in creating the modern nation-state of Canada.

You're welcome.

[rstrong]

A question I was composing when you posted, no longer aimed at you but worth mentioning:
If what we were doing is what "everyone else does ... not hostile ... routine", why do you suppose that Congress wasn't informed of it during the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution debate?

US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara failed to inform President Johnson that the second Tonkin attack didn't happen. And from Wikipedia: Robert McNamara: Vietnam War:

Records from the Lyndon Johnson Library have perhaps indicated that McNamara misled Johnson on the attack on a U.S. Navy destroyer by allegedly withholding calls against executing airstrikes from US Pacific Commanders. McNamara was also instrumental in presenting the event to Congress and the public as justification for escalation of the war against the communists.

This is an accountant who served in the military for three years as a statistician far from any combat. He became Secretary of Defense with no further military experience. I understand that those who have served in wars - in combat - tend to be a lot better at avoiding and preventing wars.

[Vrede too]

To his credit McNamara came to regret and oppose the Vietnam strategy, even while the war was still going on and LBJ was still in office. He eventually resigned and later became a strong advocate for peace. Others still see nothing wrong with our Vietnam genocide and the reasons offered for perpetrating it.

It very well may be "that those who have served in wars - in combat - tend to be a lot better at avoiding and preventing wars." Is there any evidence to back it up, though?

Non-warrior Obama - multiple wars.
Non-warrior Shrub - multiple wars.
Non-warrior Clinton - multiple wars-light.
Warrior Daddy Shrub - war and multiple proxy wars.
Non-warrior Reagan - multiple wars-light and proxy wars.
Warrior Carter - a few proxy wars.
Warrior Kennedy and non-warriors LBJ and Nixon - Vietnam.
Warrior Ike - proxy wars and the Cold War.
Warrior Truman - Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Korea.
Non-warrior FDR - WW2.

But, that's a small sample. Not sure about elsewhere but my opinion is that US warriors and non-warriors alike do little to avoid and prevent wars. How about Canadian PMs?

[rstrong]

Some were stuck with wars and could do little to prevent them.

I'm thinking for of Bush I vs Bush II as a classic example. Bush I (warrior) was stuck with Gulf War I via mutual defense treaties with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But he gave the Pentagon their marching orders with a specific goal: Remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. He put a competent person (General Schwarzkopf) in charge.

And built a coalition of over 30 countries - including 13 Islamic countries. And kept it from fracturing by keeping Israel from retaliating when Iraq dragged Israel into the war with missile strikes.

And then STOPPED the war one hundred hours after the ground campaign started, the moment the Kuwait was liberated. No pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam. No occupation.

Sure, Bush II (non-warrior) (fine; draft dodger / AWOL) and fellow non-warriors Cheney and Rove were stuck with Afghanistan. But not with an occupation. Not for a decade.

And they weren't at all stuck with Iraq. Not the invasion, not a decade long occupation, and not the ISIS mess it turned into. But they did it anyway. Nor did they give the Pentagon a goal and select a competent general: They micro-managed the Pentagon from the White-House without accepting input from professional warriors, until it was completely FUBAR. And sent many $Billions to former CEO and still stockholder Cheney's company Halliburton/KBR.

And we now know from General Wesley Clark that Bush II & Friends had a five-year campaign plan to invade a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

Ike (warrior) was a mixed bag. But in his farewell address to the nation he expressed his concerns about the dangers of massive military spending and government contracts to private military manufacturers, and coined the term "military–industrial complex."

Carter (warrior) was pretty good at avoiding wars. Imagine if the hostage crisis had happened while Reagan was already in power. Or if Bush II were in power. Probably it would have looked like the Iraq invasion and occupation. He took major steps toward avoiding dependence on middle-eastern oil so that the US wouldn't be dragged into wars there. Steps that Reagan promptly and proudly undid.

[Vrede too]

Nothing for me to disagree with there. I'm just wondering out of curiosity whether there's actual evidence that "those who have served in wars - in combat - tend to be a lot better at avoiding and preventing wars." It's often been stated, but my own experience is that veterans can be just as hawkish, if not more so, as nonveterans.

... And we now know from General Wesley Clark that Bush II & Friends had a five-year campaign plan to invade a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan....

Hadn't heard that. Got a link to more details?

[Vrede too]

So, 44% of viewers of an uber-violent game say they will stop watching because of a nonviolent protest against violence. America.

“When people have belief in something, or a conviction in something, trying to stand for that is a good thing. Its all about standing for it the right way.”
-- Tim Tebow

“I’d rather see him take a knee than stand up, put his hands up and get murdered. My take on it is, [expletive] has to start somewhere. If that was the starting point, I just hope people open their eyes to see there’s really a problem going on and something needs to be done for it to stop. If you’re really not racist, you won’t see what he’s doing as a threat to America, but just addressing a problem that we have.”
-- Marshawn Lynch

Of course, there's a huge difference between Tebow and Lynch.

Spoiler:

Tebow plays baseball.