Current Affairs – US

Folks, i know I am going to make myself unpopular with what I am about to say. But that is OK.
If your response to people doing things that you disapprove of is to endorse, propose or agree with the idea that they should go live somewhere else,
STOP.
Right there.
Really?
You really think that somebody should remove themselves from the USA just because they did or said something that you don’t like?
Let me spell it out.
Your views on this topic are unserious.
If somebody’s failure to stand for the Anthem, recite the Pledge of Allegiance etc. etc. offends you, that’s your problem. Not theirs. Nobody can be forced to do either activity (SCOTUS has ruled on this more than once). Unless they were making direct threats to the safety of individuals, or engaging in sedition, they have a perfect right to take those actions and/or make those statements. Dissent is not disloyalty, unless you are dealing with a dictatorship or an extremely thin-skinned and insecure person or group.
For a country that prides itself on being King Of The Heap, a lot of you sure seem to be horribly insecure. Somebody refused to stand for the National Anthem and this is some sort of mortal insult? Do you know how hyper-sensitive and thin-skinned that looks?
The only countries that enforce obeisance to symbols are totalitarian dictatorships, the kinds of countries that would disappear you in a heartbeat if you said something that the government didn’t like. If you want to know more about totalitarian dictatorships, go read some 20th Century European history and gain an understanding of which countries enforced saluting of flags and recitals of loyalty oaths. You probably wouldn’t want the USA to be spoken of in the same breath as those countries.
Now, before some of you start up with the “but I’m entitled to my opinion!” comeback, let me say that I have no problem with people expressing opinions. However, saying “if you don’t like it, leave the USA” is not an expression of opinion. If’s actually a form of eliminationist rhetoric. You want that person gone because they upset you? Sorry, but no. It makes you sound like a spoiled entitled little brat. If you disagree with them, try a cogent argument instead. It might not make you feel so emotionally fulfilled, but it stands a better chance of getting you taken seriously.

I pointed out that many of the people on Twitter who have modified their Handle name to include the word “deplorable” are, based on their recent tweets, meeting the general definition of “deplorable”.
Here is an excellent example from my Twitter timeline today. This person is not a recent sockpuppet account or any type of false-flag account, the account dates from November last year, around the time that Donald Trump began dog-whistling to nativists and white supremacists.
If you are thinking of self-identifying as “deplorable”, this is some of the company you are associating with.

White men should not be race mixing either, in my opinion. If a White man has mixed kids, they are not White. https://t.co/kkqilVyy6S

— Deplorable Mary (@marylovefreedom) September 14, 2016

No mystery goes unsolved w/ 24/7 video. Carpooling = good. Car in pool = bad. #MysterySolved https://t.co/RyLShHMVce pic.twitter.com/8IM65vtzOg

— Nest (@nest) September 12, 2016

I have one word of advice for anybody offended by Hillary Clinton’s statement about a percentage of Donald Trump’s supporters being in her words, “deplorables” who is thinking of changing their social media handle to include the word “deplorable” as a prefix, or is thinking of posting some meme proudly announcing that they are part of the deplorables.
Don’t.
There are at least three reasons that I can think of why that would be a really really bad idea. Here they are in no particular order of importance.
(CAVEAT – Of course, you may read this and are already shouting out loud “I don’t give a ****, I don’t care what some whiny-ass xxxxxx thinks about me. ” In which case, hey, it’s a free country, you can go right ahead and do whatever the hell you want. )

1. You are not your social media handle
You have a real name, which should help to identify you, and your name and your social media presence, whether you realize it or not, defines you in the eyes of any stranger that finds you on social media. If you insist on labeling yourself with a slogan, not only are you not providing any unique insight into You, you may be giving people reading your handle a first impression that is not good. If your slogan is a self-identification as part of a large group, they will tend to see you as part of a herd, a large internet group, and if they are of the opinion that (for example) Deplorables are not the sort of herd people that they want to interact with, you probably just lost an opportunity for interaction.

2. The term “deplorable” has now become a stereotype, and nobody lives up to stereotype
All of the stereotypes used in the world function as exaggerated shorthand slogans for well-known behavior pathologies. Think “jock”, “Jewish Princess”. Those words conjure up ideas about behavior that are rarely flattering. Quite the reverse.
So, if you want to self-identify as a Deplorable, yes, you can do that, but you are not positively elevating yourself on social media or distinguishing yourself. All you are doing is engaging in tribal bonding or affiliation. The term is now a perjorative shorthand stereotypical description. People do not live up to stereotype..

3. You are, whether you like it or not, associating with a large number of people who are currently, in many of their interactions, proving Hillary Clinton’s statement to be correct
Here are a couple of examples from my Twitter feed today from self-identified Deplorables who are definitely showing that they are either about to graduate from, or have graduated from Asshole School. These people are demonstrating that, given a keyboard, they too can be assholes in online forums. If they wanted to demonstrate that they are part of a group that is worthy of being described as deplorable, well…they just provided the proof that the use of that word is appropriate for describing them. Either they are immune to understanding the word “irony”, or they are, bluntly, being damn stupid.

Striking resemblance! https://t.co/wF9enDDA7y

— Deplorable B Monkey (@brassmonkey3434) September 12, 2016

DARK. CONSPIRACY. THEORY. GO.

-Earlobes
-Body shape#HillarysDouble pic.twitter.com/GrJRKf6n38

— Deplorable (@JaredWyand) September 12, 2016

What a deplorable, sick, evil, despicable anti American hag. #BasketOfDeplorables pic.twitter.com/4HvuvNinNp

— deplorable mike (@hokiedokiemike) September 12, 2016

Oregon man hangs Clinton effigy along interstate, says "vote Trump" https://t.co/zXhshB50rN pic.twitter.com/2yyIsqDjlW

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) September 13, 2016

Jim Wright has extended his initial Facebook posting into an essay on Stonekettle Station.

It is instructive to watch the unfolding of stories and responses on Twitter. As I write this, one of the trending hashtags on Twitter is #VeteransForKaepernick. A lot of military veterans totally support Kaepernick’s right to sit for the National Anthem.
Here are some of the tweets that I found this morning with my comments.

Same people applauding for this crumpled on the fainting couch over Colin Kaepernick. pic.twitter.com/JmaW34imWL

— pourmecoffee (@pourmecoffee) August 31, 2016

Disrespecting the flag? Disrespecting the USA? Well, well, well. What do we have here?

“I don’t want him anywhere near my team. He’s a traitor.” Front office execs on Kaepernick. https://t.co/rwwOJwqltF
— mike freeman (@mikefreemanNFL) August 31, 2016

Colin Kaepernick is a traitor? Holy moly. Somebody is either wilfully stupid, ignorant or both, and needs to go to a dictionary, look up the meaning of the word “treason” and wise up. It’s probably not a good idea for front office execs to be bloviating on this topic at all. 80% of the NFL’s players are not white, and when you have retired players like Jim Brown saying that they support Kaepernick, attempting to excoriate or censor his views is probably not a good idea. The NFL already has a credibility problem with its selective “look the other way” approach to players who, you know, actually commit crimes, like domestic partner abuse. (Conspiracy theorists have already noted that while the NFL had no problem coming down like a ton of bricks on Ray Rice, an African American player, for domestic partner abuse, they have done nothing about disciplining the Giants’ Josh Brown, who was arrested for domestic abuse and is white).
The idea that teams can force employees into compulsory obeisance to ceremonies is not one that will find favour either with employees or, more importantly, the legal system. It may also lead to the filing of a greivance by the NLFPA, which is deeply resentful of the NFL’s attempt, on top of what they consider to be a poor CBA, to impose all manner of non-appeable quasi-judicial punishments on players.

Kaepernick should have just threatened armed secession or occupied an empty building in the middle of nowhere with guns. Wait.

— Vann R. Newkirk II (@fivefifths) August 31, 2016

Ah yes. Quite. Currently there are thousands of would-be insurrectionists in the USA, some of whom have actually taken up arms against the US government. Yet their efforts to destablize the USA are being ignored in favor of the excoriation of one man who engaged in a legal peaceful protest action. This is why I consider most of the bloviation against Kaepernick to be profoundly unserious.

1. Employment statistics
One interesting and puzzling (and potentially problematical) feature of the USA is the extent to which adult males in their working prime are disappearing from the job market.

2. The appeal of Donald Trump
This article argues that Donald Trump’s accent and scattershot speech, while signalling to many people that he is utterly unserious, signals to many disaffected voters that he is “not like all of those other hucksters and bullshitters”, which gives him a tremendous advantage with some disaffected groups.

This blog at Vox.com is an excellent source of thoughtful information about the current state of the US political system.

The recent shitstorm over the failure of Colin Kaepernick to stand for the National Anthem is further confirmation that there are a large number of people in the modern USA for whom the concept of freedom, like some people’s concept of free speech, has become highly selective. When they exercise their personal freedoms, no problem. When another person exercises his freedom in a way they don’t like…well, suddenly that person is a lower form of life.
Sorry, but that is a bullshit interpretation of freedom. You don’t get to sit in judgment on others on how they can and should exercise their freedoms. If concepts like freedom and free speech are to be anything other than nice sounding catch-phrases, we have to accept that freedom means that people will routinely do and say things with which we disagree.
Right now, a significant number of people clearly disagree with Colin Kaepernick’s actions. However, they seem to be unable to disagree without being highly disagreeable. Many of them are behaving like assholes. They are talking keyboard-warrior smack, making threats using both indirect and direct speech, and generally talking like over-sensitive macho warriors with an acute case of butthurt.
We control our reaction to those things that others do or say. Right now, many people’s reactions to Colin Kaepernick’s actions remind me of the classic excuse of abusers the world over (“If you had behaved properly, i wouldn’t have had to hit you”). As Robin Skynner, the British psychologist, once said:

If people can’t control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people’s behavior.

The prevailing sentiment of many people opposed to Colin Kaepernick’s actions occupies some weird zone, comprised of a mixture of demanding that he change his behavior (apparently he is not do to that again, ever, and he should be issuing groveling apologies until I decide that he has been sufficiently penitent) and cersorious mean-spirited proposals for draconian punishment (as in, the 49ers are supposed to terminate his contract).
These sort of reactions convince me that many people are indeed unable to control their emotions, which is not a good thing for them. They are the ones that need to be examining their behavior rather than Colin Kapernick, who did nothing wrong by sitting down for the National Anthem.
By the way, if the NFL or any NFL team tries to mandate that players stand, and the case goes to court, the NFL and/or the clubs may well lose, based on previous SCOTUS rulings that nobody can be forced to stand for or recite an anthem or pledge. The lack of constitutional validity for demanding fealty to symbols (already established by SCOTUS rulings that nobody may be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance) may well override any attempt by NFL teams to mandate standing for the National Anthem. This sort of mandatory fealty that some people are expecting or demanding is, in my non-lawyer opinion, unconstitutional, and it should remain that way, since the only governments that mandate such fealty are dictatorships.
Various people, including Drew Brees, have explained carefully why they think Colin Kaepernick’s action was incorrect. I happen to disagree with Drew Brees, for several reasons, but he was polite and careful in his comments, so I have no problem with his position. I have a big problem with the juvenile, potty-mouthed asshats who seem to comprise the majority of the online mob that seems to be convincing themselves that Colin Kaepernick is the personification of un-American Evil. Those people are unserious, have nothing useful to say, listening to them is a waste of my time, and if they continue to pollute my Facebook wall with drivel, they will be disappearing off my Friends list in short order. Or, to return to where I came in…freedom gives people the right to behave like juvenile asshats. It also gives me the right to ignore them or remove them from my online world.
UPDATE – Ken White over at Popehat articulates a lot of my objections quite eloquently.

This is a pretty good explanation for how the two major parties ended up where they currently are, in terms of their support bases and policies.
The analysis also makes it clear that Donald Trump’s rise to become the Republican nominee for POTUS is not some weird one-off event, after which things will revert to “normal”. Donald Trump and the attitudes he represents may become the new “normal” for the GOP. His rise has been a long time in the making.