|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 27, 2017 18:39:50 GMT -5
They could do that, and they might even be slightly right. But the real problem with the NFL this season is two-fold. Too many games to watch and too many unwatchable games. Don't believe it? Let someone who has shelled out big bucks to carry pro football games and isn't at all happy how watered down the product has become.Pro Football used to be played on Sundays. Then it expanded to Monday night. Then it expanded to Sunday afternoon and evening. Then the NFL Sunday Ticket made it possible for any fan to watch their favorite team. Then it expanded to Thursday night. The only days there's no football on is Tuesday and Wednesday, and I'm probably wrong about that. But there can be too much of a good thing and there's too damn much football. I could watch pro on Thursday, high school on Friday, college all day and night Saturday, pro again all day and deep into the night on Sunday and back at it again on Monday. Now I don't know about you, but I get tired of football. I particularly get tired of football when stars like Aaron Rodgers, J.J. Watt, Odell Beckham, David Johnson and many others are done for the season or not playing at all like Andrew Luck. Who wants to wake up at 9:30 a.m on the East Coast to watch the winless Browns throw DeShone Kizer to the dogs the Vikings (led by scrub Case Keenum) are gonna sic on him? Who's rocking the gear of Matt Moore, Jacoby Brissett, Drew Stanton, C.J. Beathard, or Josh McCown? Who gets hyped about three shut-outs last weekend, an overtime game with nothing but field goals scored, or teams trotting out green-as-grass rookies like Mitch Trubinsky in Chicago who threw SEVEN passes the entire game, but still emerged a winner because a defensive back took two turnovers to the house? The NFL is broken and while the protests don't help the situation, the reason the league is sucking so hard is because the games suck, the coaching sucks, the level of play sucks and the owners bitching about their own employees only make it worse. In the case of Jerry Jones who has a hotline to 45 or Babblin' Bob McNair, owner of the Houston Texans chirping about the protests, "We can't have the inmates running the prison" this sort of fuckery only makes a bad situation much, MUCH worse. Comparisons between football players and prison inmates is never going to go over well. You just had President Sexual Harassment calling them "sons of bitches." Now you're calling them convicts? How much poison do you wanna pour in that well, NFL owners? How much you wanna test just how much you belittle and berate these young Black men before they start looking back at history and recalling when baseball owner Marge Schott called two of her stars, "million dollar niggers?" How long before those young Black men starting wondering, "If this what they call us publicly, what are they calling us privately?" Your owners are behaving badly, Roger Goodell. You better get 'em together and tell to shut the fuck up before feelings get so raw, instead of players taking a knee on the sidelines, they walk together to the 50-yard line, throw aside their uniforms and helmets and walk off the field bare-assed, but not before mooning the crowd. Pro Bowl cornerback Richard Sherman tweeted: I can appreciate ppl being candid. Don’t apologize! You meant what you said. Showing true colors allows ppl to see you for who you are. — Richard Sherman (@rsherman_25) October 27, 2017 I wish more ppl would do that. So the world could ostracize those who don’t want to see EQUALITY. Otherwise they will continue to hide — Richard Sherman (@rsherman_25) October 27, 2017 The Texans owner opened his big yap and put both his shoes in it. But he was being honest. McNair only said what a lot of White NFL fans believe to be true. I applaud the courage of his candor. I'm appalled by his stupidity of his brain-dead racism.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 27, 2017 4:55:45 GMT -5
Nah, opposition research is opposition research, and everybody does it. And getting caught lying is getting caught lying, whether it's people on Trump's side or people on Clinton's side. I'm not contradicting myself at all, especially since I explicitly noted that this doesn't make Trump's people look any better. Well, yeah, but then that's what you always try to do. Split the difference right down the middle to claim, " See! I criticized both sides." The thing is you tend to pull that old card trick in defense of Trump, not the other side. The veiled advocacy undermines the illusion of the supposed objectivity. Just following your example.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 26, 2017 16:35:41 GMT -5
...that was then when Trump was in the dunking tank. ...and this is now, because it makes "Clinton's excuse-matters look pretty bad." Uh-huh. It also makes Trump's excuse-makers look like pretty bad hypocrites. Opposition research is bad when its done by Trump but not so bad when its done by folks in favor of Clinton (but not Hillary Clinton herself). Situational ethics are the best!
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 26, 2017 16:05:02 GMT -5
It gets better...Should be very interesting to have some owners sitting across the table from the man who has brought so much misery into their lives and they refuse to hire. The Dolphins and the Cardinals both had their starting quarterbacks go down last Sunday, but instead of calling 1-800-Kapernick, the Fins signed David Fales and the Cards didn't sign anybody. More fuel for Kap's collusion fire and as an estranged fan of his former team, the 0-7 49ers, I sincerely hope he burns the fucking league down to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 25, 2017 21:07:41 GMT -5
Stephanie McKellop is unsubtle in her approach and perhaps would have been better served to simply be discreet in her pecking order of who gets called upon first and who gets called upon last. The same way a racist TA determines if the color of the raised hand doesn't jibe with their own preferences, they are ignored. But she wasn't embarrassed or afraid to speak the truth she lives so I can't be to defend her from those who would demonize her for doing the right thing as she sees it.
Traditionally, in the college classroom is sets up like this.
White men have the most juice.
White women have less juice.
Black men have less juice than White women and much less juice than White men.
Black women have less juice than Black men, White women and much much much less juice than White men.
Malcolm X explained why.
“The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman, the most unprotected person in America is the Black woman, the most neglected person in America is the Black woman.”
Ab-so-fucking-lutely.
I will always respect Black women, I will always protect Black women and I will never neglect Black women. To not do so would be to disrespect, refuse to protect and neglect the Black women in my life and I will not do that.
It's Not about being liked. Not about being understood. Not about putting congeniality and civility ahead of principle and purpose. Not about getting along with those in power or merely fooling themselves they are.
I will never apologize for defending Black women being called upon before Black men or White women or White men. No matter who dislikes it, disagrees with it, dismisses it or is disturbed and disgusted by it.
To be treated equally doesn't mean everybody is treated the same.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 25, 2017 20:25:33 GMT -5
Bob Corker is a conservative. Jeff Flake is a conservative. Donald Trump is not a conservative. He's a self-promoting parasite who latched on to conservatism and is bleeding it dry like a leech. When he is finally engorged on its blood, he'll fall off and true, principled, responsible conservatives will have to examine the desiccated remains to determine if Trump has corrupted their causes and principles beyond resuscitation. Someone will have to stand up to Trump. Corker won't and neither will Flake. Kasich could, but probably not running as a Republican. Romney and the Bush family have been checkmated. McCain has bigger fish to fry. Who's left? Trump can be beaten, but before the Left can step up to the plate and take a swing at it, the Right has to take the first crack and declare, " This is not who we are." A few are coming from the shadows, but it's going to take more. Many more before conservatism can reclaim its soul from Trumpism.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 25, 2017 20:02:55 GMT -5
It's extremely germane if it points to a pattern of systemic and institutional racism at American Airlines. Yes, I know Ben Stein rejects the concept of institutional racism. Only a fool would say that and Stein is often extremely foolish. Well, it can't point to much of anything, as given, since it's just a letter making accusations...again, from 2015. And again, it's specific to AA employees in two locations: Philly and DC. A letter from two years ago is not ancient history. It's two years and accusations of institutional racism should be properly investigated whether its specific to Black AA employees (and I emphasize Black because race matters here) in two locations or 22 locations. Discrimination is discrimination and it doesn't require large numbers of complainants to necessitate a serious inquiry to prove or disprove the accusations. Unfortunately, it's unlikely a Justice Department run by Jeff Sessions is interested in finishing a job started by Loretta Lynch. Nothing in Sessions' career arc bends toward pursuing justice for Black people. Every story out there from people claiming mistreatment by airlines is not equal to every story from people claiming mistreatment by airlines. Being racially discriminated may not as serious as lost luggage or a canceled flight to some people, but it's probably real important to the Black passengers who are being discriminated against. Trivializing their complaints by dumping them in a barrel with every other complainant indicates a lack of understanding of how Black people encounter and deal with casual acts of bigotry from unexpected quarters far too frequently to be written off as a few bad eggs giving crappy customer service. If it's common sense there are unhappy travelers on American Airlines who get bumped, get moved, have their flights canceled, it is equally common sense there are unhappy travelers who are racially targeted, racially profiled and racially discriminated and that's not a trifling thing. That's serious and unlike getting bumped, getting moved and having a flight canceled, it's illegal. The NAACP issuing a travel advisory is not purposely parroting State Department language for dangerous regions. Travel advisories for Blacks predate the State Department's appropriation of it. From 1936 to 1964, Negroes traveling by car across America, The Green Book served as their guide to finding the safest routes and accommodations between Point A to B to "avoid embarrassment" or something much worse. Following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Mr. Green discontinued publishing his guide. Segregation was on its way out and he may have thought the need for The Green Book had gone with it, but while most Americans are familiar with Blacks having to ride in the backs of buses in the South, few know the races were kept separate and unequal at airports as well. Everyone enjoys looking back at history and crowing, "We've made so much progress since then!" That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is who thinks the most progress has been made and who thinks how much still needs to be. Both sides think they're right, but only one side knows for certain they are because its still happening to them. Until it happens to you you can't know what its like and you certainly can't tell those it happened to it shouldn't matter to them because it doesn't matter to you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 25, 2017 15:55:11 GMT -5
Maybe. But the above letter to Loretta Lynch was sent in 2015 and concerned employees in Philly and DC, alone. So I don't think it's particularly germane to the NAACP's "travel advisory," It's extremely germane if it points to a pattern of systemic and institutional racism at American Airlines. Yes, I know Ben Stein rejects the concept of institutional racism. Only a fool would say that and Stein is often extremely foolish. So yeah, if you want to be a cynic, maybe this is all a ploy by the NAACP to coerce American Airlines to reach for its wallet and give them some money to go away and leave them alone. Or maybe there is a genuine problem with systemic racial discrimination at American Airlines and to avoid being exposed to it the NAACP is doing its job in looking out for the rights of African-Americans. Crazy talk, I know, but not beyond the realm of possibility. Not beyond the realm of possibility, but what is the theory under which a major corporation is uniquely and pervasively racist to a greater degree than the rest of the industry? So is the airline industry in general really racist, or is there some shadow policy enacted by American Airlines to discriminate against black people because... American Airlines really hates black people? I wouldn't know. What I do know are major corporations which own banks, hotels, and restaurant discriminate against Black people. What I do know is hospitals and insurance companies and doctors discriminate against Black people. What I do know is institutions of higher learning and public school systems discriminate against Black people. What I do know is Uber and AirBnB discriminate against Black people. What I do know is law enforcement and the judiciary and the penal system discriminate against Black people. What I do know is sports franchises and movie and TV studios and advertising agencies discriminate against Black people. What I do know is local, state and federal government and politicians on every level discriminate against Black people. I am not guessing this. I know this. What I do not know and do not care is if American Airlines "really hates Black people." I could give a shit whether they hate or love Black people. All I care about is does American Airlines treat its Black customers differently than its White ones and will the color of my skin determine the pleasantness of my flight? If they do, then I appreciate the warning from the NAACP so I can take my business to someone else who wants it.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 25, 2017 15:21:04 GMT -5
I'm disappointed that Flake is retiring. Can't say I blame him, though. Had Flake not retired he likely would have been retired in the Republican primary. His poll numbers were dismal and his chances of reelection bleak.
By taking to the Senate floor to announce he wouldn't run again and rip into Trump, Flake ensured he would be able to leave the Senate under his terms as well as dominate the news cycle for a day or so. Done and done, but besides delighting some liberals as well as the small, but occasionally noisy Never Trump wing of the Republican Party, what exactly has Flake and Bob Corker's heresy against the titular leader of the GOP actually mean? From my perspective, not all that much and NY Times in-house conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, shares the same perspective. Corker and Flake aren't leading a fight against Trump. They're abandoning it. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Corker and Flake are taking the fight to Trump. Those of us opposed to 45 having been clamoring for conservatives to come to their senses and stand against this usurper for the good of their country and their party. It would be great if their individual acts of defiance morphed into a genuine repudiation and rejection of Trump with Corker, Flake, Mitt Romney, John Kasich and others joined in to throw Trump out. That would be great. I don't see it happening. As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Corker can make things tough on Trump by poking around in his dealings with Russia and countries he does business with and Flake will probably become a familiar face on CNN and Sunday morning political shows. This should ensure the free-flow of angry Tweets from 45 for the next year or so. However, the proof in the pudding is in the tasting and Corker and Flake celebrated their spat with 45 by agreeing with him on a bill to gut an important consumer protection certain to leave a bad taste in the mouths of consumers. The Senate needs more reasonable politicians who aren't scary/weird like Keli Ward and Roy Moore, but hold off of the canonization of Corker and Flake, okay? They're still Republicans and they still have very conservative voting records which is reflected by how often they voted exactly how Trump wanted them to. By all means, enjoy Flake's speech and Corker's snappy sassy sniping at Trump. Just don't count on it amounting to either of them calling for impeachment or backing up their big talk with bold action. More than likely, you'll just be sad.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 25, 2017 14:22:21 GMT -5
From the NAACP's letter:
American Airlines mistreatment of African-Americans extends to their own workers as well as their customers.
So yeah, if you want to be a cynic, maybe this is all a ploy by the NAACP to coerce American Airlines to reach for its wallet and give them some money to go away and leave them alone. Or maybe there is a genuine problem with systemic racial discrimination at American Airlines and to avoid being exposed to it the NAACP is doing its job in looking out for the rights of African-Americans. Crazy talk, I know, but not beyond the realm of possibility.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 19:08:25 GMT -5
If want to say something to me, Christine, go ahead. I used the word I thought most appropriate to being called out complete with curse words to make sure there was no ambivalence. Your reaction is yours and mine is mine. We tend to agree more than disagree but we're not joined at the hip. Indeed, we do, and are not, respectively. Pointing out a sexist remark someone has made is, for me, a defense of/show of solidarity toward the person it was made it to. These things should not generally go unremarked upon, imo. But, as I said, Cass is solid on such matters, so she doesn't need me to say so. It's quite fucking freeing, actually. TCG FTW. That said, I've read your posts for six years now, and I can attest to the fact that you're a good egg, not sexist, at all. Not that you need to me to say so, either. ETA: I suppose asking you to be a bit more kind is out of the question.... Never mind. Anyhoo. Carry on. Your show of solidarity to your gender is duly noted. Does that mean had it been Opty or Amadan who had said the exact same thing you wouldn't feel it necessary to make a similar defense of/show of solidarity? I'm kind but not so kind as to be mistaken as being weak. If people get the impression they can push you around when they want, you can't complain when they push you around. It gives people the wrong fucking impression and this is why I am so adamant about discouraging that sort of shit. From certain quarters I expect that sort of thing. Those individuals have some serious hard-ons about me and some unresolved issues they need to work out with a good shrink. When the flamethrowers come from someone whom I'm typically on civil terms with, it's a bit more startling, but no less aggravating. I like to think I'm more of a good egg than a bad one and I try hard not be sexist, but yeah, I slip up. I'm human. So is everyone else and they can't possibly know what its like to have someone make demands of you they don't have any business making. I don't barter honesty to be politically correct and when I'm told upfront someone is putting me on blast to get a rise out of me, I figure they'll be disappointed if I don't give back what I've received. Respect is a two-way street. Show me none and you get none. After six years you should know that about me.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 18:49:37 GMT -5
You know what, nighttimer? That's so unworthy and hypocritical in about ten different ways, I'm not bothering to engage you. It is not as though you listen to a damn word anyway. Why? What's so unworthy and hypocritical about taking offense by the rude way you "got in my face? You wanted me to engage you then and I obliged. You boasted "Mission. Fucking. Accomplished" but now that I HAVE engaged you've reconsidered that thought? You think describing your insulting tone as shrill is condescending? I call it accurate. You try being called out and cursed out and see how it makes you feel. I can promise you it certainly won't feel like respect. I listen to every damn word, but it damn sure doesn't mean I will agree with them. You know what? You win. This whole thing has become entirely too personal, totally off topic, too poisonous to serve any purpose. It's not civil and it's not respectful and before anyone in the cheap seats jumps in to say it, it wasn't just me squeezing off shots. I give what I get. Nothing but static and noise is coming from this give-and-take and it's become nothing but a tedious snark fest firing rhetorical shots at each other. The last words are all yours, Cassandra. As salaamu alaikum.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 18:18:15 GMT -5
Btw: I would say something to nighttimer about using the word "shrill" to describe Cass's "tone" buuuut I'm pretty sure she doesn't need me to do that. If want to say something to me, Christine, go ahead. I used the word I thought most appropriate to being called out complete with curse words to make sure there was no ambivalence. Your reaction is yours and mine is mine. We tend to agree more than disagree but we're not joined at the hip. Heh. The fact is, I don't actually have a shrill voice. (Some of you have heard my poetry readings, and MarkEsq has met me -- I am betting you'd all attest to that.) When I'm not interacting with them a position of authority, men often tell me I have a lovely, musical voice. But when I am...yeah, it's often another matter. And it's got pretty much squat to do with whether I'm actually stressed or angry. Some guys hear stress and anger -- excuse me, hysteria -- in a female voice that is simply making a point or giving instructions. It is quite remarkable. It is a deeply ingrained, knee-jerk, in many (but not all) cases unconscious reaction to a woman in command. And pretty much every woman who has been in a position of authority has experienced it. And the word "shrill" is too often used, which is why Christine and I both cringe at it. I think it kind of goes like this. Women pretty much universally have voices at a higher pitch than most men. Many men have rarely experienced women having authority over them besides a mother or perhaps a teacher. And that authority they shucked off when they reached manhood. So it sits all wrong with them, instinctively, to have an authoritative voice be in that higher register -- hey, they're not little boys, so why is that female yelling at them like mom, and who does she think she is, anyway. Shrill is not melodic. There's nothing remotely melodic about someone dropping Fuck bombs on you and demanding you acknowledge their presence. It's not remotely thoughtful political discussion either. It's personalizing the debate and that's all.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 15:19:15 GMT -5
It's about fucking time you and Christine acknowledged my presence in this thread. Up until now you were too goddamn busy talking to the white boys and pretending I wasn't here. Not the first time it has happened, either. I got as in your face as I could to try to change that dynamic. Mission. Fucking. Accomplished. I reference this only to remind myself of how shrill and confrontational it was. And how it assured everything after it would be shrill and confrontational. Mission. Fucking. Accomplished. Indeed. Hope you're feeling better. You can denigrate my own experience all you like, Nighttimer, but learning to get past my own feelings of intimidation to speak up and debate the Robeiaes, Amadans, and Optys in class was damn fucking good practice for my doing so in my career and in real life in general. I don't expect -- or need -- anyone to shut up in order for me to speak. You repeatedly scoff and abuse my pride in this, seemingly assuming that this was handed to me out of the goddamn clouds as a divine gift. (I also enjoy how you twist my pride in MY ASSERTING MYSELF IN CLASS as bragging about how intelligent I am.) Well, it wasn't a gift. I didn't grow up rich and fancy, and I was brought up in a pretty traditional environment where the women all were married by age 20 and started popping out kids, where the women did all the cooking and household chores, and where both of my parents actually tried to DISCOURAGE me from applying to ivy league schools or becoming a lawyer because that wasn't for "people like us." It took them actually seeing me at my law school graduation for my own fucking family to actually fucking start to accept that I could maybe do it. Taking aside sexism, etc., I had some native shyness and native feelings of inferiority I had to overcome. Hell, I still fight those things. It's great you became empowered and assertive and now you're so fucking fierce you don't have to take a back step for anyone. What do you want me to do here? Applaud? I didn't denigrate your experience. I said your experience is irrelevant to this topic. It is. So is mine, but the difference between us is I know it already. You insist anecdotal stories are relevant and take umbrage to it being doubted. I didn't scoff and abuse your pride. You took dismissing your anecdotal stories as scoffing and abusing your pride. We did this routine last week over Liz Soeiro vs. Melania Trump and you took that personally too. It's nice you feel confident you're battle tested enough to crash and bang with the Amadans, Optys and robeiaes in your college classes and now on this board, but eeing how I'm none of those guys, have nothing in common with of those guys, and I'm nothing like any of those guys, a more relevant question in regards to the contentious serve-and-volley of the last few weeks is, " Are you ready to deal with nighttimer?" I'll confirm one thing and one thing only you brought up earlier. No, I didn't have a problem speaking up in class and making my viewpoint clear and where I stood on the matte. Speaking up for myself and asserting myself in the presence of White people has never been a problem. Other Black college students do have that problem. They feel isolated as they are often outnumbered in the lecture halls and classrooms. They may not have all the right facts in the correct order. They may feel embarrassed by how they speak and wonder if they're articulate enough to engage with their White classmates and professors (or teaching assistants). Maybe they shut down and shut up. Move to the back of the classroom or lecture hall and hope like hell the instructor doesn't call on them or when they do, mumble out something to indicate they aren't prepared to answer the question even though they are. A powerful and influential Black man once said, "I didn't grow up speaking standard English at home...I grew up with people who were not lettered people, most of whom couldn't read at all. It was not uncommon, when someone was signing something, they would simply make their mark. Or they would take your word for it. Or they would be upset if you asked them to sign a contract because their word was the contract. So in that environment these people, my relatives, my neighbors, treasured education in a way that people who were hungry would treasure food." That was Clarence Thomas. Thomas also said in his 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son,” he had never asked questions in college or law school and felt intimidated by some of his fellow students. Thomas said he was self-conscious about the way he spoke, partly because he had been teased about the accent he grew up speaking with in Georgia. That still holds true. College campuses chew up and spit out the ill-prepared, the too shy, the easily intimidated. There's a certain safety in silence. Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. That's a great coping tactic to get through feeling you're not as smart as your peers or your presence isn't really wanted and they probably think you only got in because of affirmative action in the first place. Why open your mouth and possibly confirm their suspicions? Why set yourself up to be publicly humiliated because you don't have the right clothes or speak with a drawl or drop your "g's"? What you don't get Cassandra is no matter how inspirational your story is to you, that's your story. It's got nothing to do with what a Black female college student goes through. Maybe you think they could learn from you and that's certainly possible. But it's not likely. Not when you assert because its never happened to you it doesn't exist in your world. Lucky you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 23, 2017 13:05:55 GMT -5
|
|