There has been a lot of media coverage lately about patriotism flared by SF 49ner NFL player Colin Kaepernick. For those of you with your heads in the sand, Mr. Kaepernick has decided to demonstrate his First Amendment Rights by refusing to stand for the playing of the National Anthem. That in itself isn't a problem. I'm all for folks taking a stand. What has people upset is when and how the man is doing it. The player has chosen to make his views known during games, while in uniform.
If he had spouted off on his own time, no one would have given him a second thought.
It's a shame really. Here's a man who makes millions of dollars to play a game. There are thousands of men and women who aspire to make it to the highest level of their chosen field, whether that is in sports or a professional career (writing, medicine, law, business, art, theater, etc) every year. Only a fraction ever get to the level he has. Why not use the fame and wealth to make a positive change? Even worse, he pulled his antics on a field with the military in attendance: those brave men and women who vowed to put their lives on the line to secure our safety. Do something Sir: use your influence to help make those changes starting with the youth in your neighborhood. Give them a positive role model and encourage education. Maybe donate a little time and money towards some youth centers to get those kids off the street (promote dialogue across the board with law enforcement by getting them involved).
I can't speak out against a policy I completely disagree with to customers while I'm on the clock. I have to be silent on the subject.
That's called discretion! On my own time, I can vent all I want.
We all like to think we're patriotic. How many of us say "I support the troops." when asked. How many actual stand at events for the National Anthem? How many of you have read the Constitution of the United States? Do you know what the process of electing our President is? What happens if both Republican and Democratic candidates get equal amounts of electoral votes?
What happens then?
Did you know that the House of Representatives decides on the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President.
Which brings me to the debates. At one point, the League of Women Voters ran the debates. They allowed more than just the two main party candidates on the stage. But the DNC and RNC didn't like the other party members upstaging theirs and taking votes from them (yes, there ARE other parties out there). Hence, the '15%' rule to get alternate presidential want-a-bees on the stage. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson must have an average of 15% in the polls to earn a spot in the debates. But which polls are used and who makes that decision?
How reliable are polls anyway? We're not told who is contacted for the polls. I mean come on folks...if you call 100 people in a liberal city, you'll get predictable results. Same goes if you call 100 people in a conservative city. Wouldn't it be more fair to let all four people participate? The die-hard Clinton and Trump folks won't be swayed one way or the other but those of us who haven't decided want to be informed.
Isn't it the American way to have choices?
Meanwhile, I can only say I know who I'm NOT voting for.
Stay safe out there and God Bless America.