21 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-9-20

  1. Tychicus,

    Even if they covered it, they wouldn’t do so accurately.

    Case in point….


    “CBS Deceptively Edits Barr Interview, Leaving Out Key Details On Violent Riots, Police Oversight

    Some of the most colorful descriptions of the violence facing police officers at Lafayette Square were clumsily spliced out of the middle of Barr’s answers to questions.”

    “Key details on violent riots near the White House were removed from the broadcast of an interview of Attorney General William Barr on CBS News’ “Face The Nation” Sunday. Anchor Margaret Brennan repeatedly described protests as “peaceful” and the clearing of protesters to set up a stronger perimeter as unnecessarily rushed, contentions Barr strongly denied.

    Left out of the interview that aired on CBS on Sunday morning was Barr’s detailed accounting of much of the violent context of that perimeter expansion, including that “bricks and inflammable liquid” were being thrown at police in Lafayette Square near the White House as rioters “were trying to get entry” over the fences, the five dozen officers guarding Lafayette Square who were “lost” the night prior in the violence, and the individuals who at the time of their forced dispersal “wrestled with the police officers trying to tear their shields from them, in one case, struggling to get one of the police officer’s guns.”

    Some of the most colorful descriptions of the violence facing police officers at Lafayette Square were clumsily spliced out of the middle of Barr’s answers to questions. The rather important detail about a protester trying to get a police officer’s guns was simply removed from the end of the interview. These remarks were edited out of an interview in which Barr said media mantras about Park Police facing peaceful protesters were lies.

    “They were not peaceful protesters. And that’s one of the big lies that the- the media is- seems to be perpetuating at this point,” Barr said.

    Also left out of the broadcast interview were Barr’s detailed comments on how to improve policing, ostensibly the biggest news issue in the country. Barr said that experience and research showed that “you can actually get more focused change and more real change by working in more collaboration with the police,” and that approaches taken in previous years “make the police pull back and actually lead to more death, more murders, more crime.””

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Yet people just keep eating what the “experts” are serving.


    “Wait… so, asymptomatic spread of the coronavirus is actually ‘very rare’?”

    “No fever, no problem?

    ‘From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual. It’s very rare.’

    That’s Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, seemingly contradicting what many have been led to believe about the transmission of the coronavirus.

    In other words, while it still happens in some cases, patients without symptoms aren’t generally the ones driving the spread. This flies in the face of previous research warning the disease could be difficult to contain because of asymptomatic infections.

    “We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,” Van Kerkhove said at a briefing Monday from the U.N.’s headquarters. “They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward.”

    Back in April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on the “potential for presymptomatic transmission” as a reason for maintaining social-distancing restrictions.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The “experts” have agendas too.

    “Here’s Three Examples Of Why Public Trust In The Scientific Community Is Waning”


    “The protests over the death of George Floyd have brought to the surface a good example of why so many in the general public no longer trust what public health professionals are saying about the coronavirus pandemic. The information being given to us is confusing and ever-changing. Now the information is being filtered through the lens of social justice activism.

    Many in the medical and scientific community have publicly come out in support of Black Lives Matter and the protests dominating the news. It’s a free country, that’s their right to individually do so but it is quite another thing for their personal opinions to affect public health recommendations. Last week I wrote about White Coats for Black Lives in Houston and members of the Texas Medical Centers joining in on the BLM march. At the time, the mayor’s spokeswoman offered up an interesting opinion – the death of a black man in police custody is “a public health crisis.” The talking points have been established.

    Protesting during a pandemic is doable if the cause is righteous, that’s the message being sent. An open letter signed by 1,300 epidemiologists and public health experts says that “protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported.” These professionals specifically say that their support of racial injustice protests does not mean they endorse other gatherings – you know, like protests about stay-at-home orders. The open letter actually says that “COVID-19 among black patients is yet another lethal manifestation of white supremacy.” Wow. Take that, white people.

    Staying at home, social distancing, and public masking are effective at minimizing the spread of COVID-19. To the extent possible, we support the application of these public health best practices during demonstrations that call attention to the pervasive lethal force of white supremacy. However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives. Protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported.

    Apparently the science changes if a protest is for the right cause. My question is a simple one – if COVID-19 affects the black community in greater numbers than others, as the data shows due mostly to underlying medical conditions, why would the professionals be encouraging protests comprised in large numbers of black people? Does that make sense?

    Example two is one of the scientists from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). They, too, have written a letter. Scientists from the philanthropic organization funded by Zuckerberg but separate from Facebook are none too pleased that the evil Orange Man is allowed to post freely on Facebook without censorship. They long for some authoritarian action (stricter policy enforcement) to be taken against the President of the United States because he spreads “inaccurate information and incendiary language contrary to CZI’s mission to “build a healthier, just, and more inclusive future.” I bet you can guess which statement, in particular, offended them the most.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. They Blinded Us With “Science”

    From questionable “experts.”


    “Throughout the pandemic, political leaders have consistently relied on questionable expert guidance—and ducked responsibility for their own choices.”

    “How would our leaders get through this pandemic without “the science”?

    It’s never been obvious just what “the science” is, or why anyone would speak of science as a single truth, but the role it plays is quite clear. It’s the modern equivalent of the Oracle of Delphi, that mysterious font of guidance that Greek leaders consulted during wars and other crises. However foolish or sensible the advice may be, the oracle gives leaders an excuse to duck responsibility for decisions—and their consequences.

    Why, for instance, was the upstate New York economy shut down for more than two months, despite the small number of cases of Covid-19 in rural counties? Why, as some offices and barber shops and other upstate businesses were finally about to reopen at the end of May, did Governor Andrew Cuomo infuriate local officials by suddenly announcing that this decision could not be made by them—or even by himself?

    “We’ll give the experts all the data,” he explained. “And if they say we should move forward, we move forward.” Everyone’s fate now rests with the new oracles.

    By “the experts,” Cuomo meant the consultants brought in to oversee the state’s reopening: an epidemiologist from the University of Minnesota and a statistician from Imperial College in London. When he introduced them at a press conference in mid-May, he explained that reopening was “not a political exercise.”

    “This is about facts and science and data,” he said. “It’s math and there’s a liberation in that.”

    It may be liberating for politicians to blame economic devastation on someone else, but it’s ridiculous to pretend that epidemiologists and statisticians have magical formulae for determining the costs and benefits of the shutdown. They can estimate how quickly the virus is spreading, but they don’t know exactly what effect the various lockdown measures have on viral spread, let alone on people’s lives and livelihoods.

    The “metrics” now ruling New York’s policy sound reassuringly precise, like the requirement that a region must have 30 percent of its hospital beds free in order to enter the next phase of the reopening—as upstate counties were finally allowed to do on May 29, once the oracles had reviewed the data. New York City did not qualify then because only 28 percent of its hospital beds were free.

    How do the experts know that 28 percent is too little and 30 percent is enough? They don’t. They’ve made a guess. It’s an educated guess, because it’s informed by their profession, but it’s also biased by their profession. Their careers depend on stopping the spread of the virus, not on making sure that children can learn or adults can work.

    So when these experts ponder trade-offs, they err on the side of their profession. It would be much easier for restaurants and other businesses to operate if customers had to stay just three feet apart, in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendation of one-meter social distancing. But public-health authorities would rather play it safe by doubling the distance. They don’t know how many lives this will save, and they certainly don’t know how many businesses will be bankrupted by it. That’s not their job.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. __________________________

    The transformation of journalism that began with the political birth of Donald Trump has exploded into a full-blown crisis with the death of George Floyd.

    It is, and I don’t say this lightly, a battle for the soul of the profession. And if you take a snapshot of this moment, those who believe in the old-fashioned notions of fairness and balance are losing.

    That’s why the editorial page editor of the New York Times was forced out, that’s why the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer was forced out, and that’s why a vast swath of this country no longer trusts the media. …

    … But a dangerous trend began when Trump ran for president, and it’s no accident that his views on immigration and other social issues were viewed by detractors as either flirting with racism or the real thing. Media critics began to write, and this intensified when he got to the White House, that perhaps journalists had a higher duty to oppose him, that just-the-facts reporting was now obsolete. …

    … News organizations have to choose whether they want to win back the confidence of the entire country or only publish material that appeals to the woke crowd. The racial tensions that have gripped the country turn on matters of life and death, and that put a harsh spotlight on how journalists are defining their future. The pretense isn’t working anymore.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. “Those who egged on the riots will not have to pick up the pieces.”


    “After the widespread outrage at the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police in 2015, there were some limited riots, though they were far overshadowed by justified and peaceful protests. Nevertheless, then president Barack Obama rose to the occasion and harshly condemned the rioters as ‘criminals and thugs’. There was ‘no excuse for the kind of violence that we saw’ in Baltimore, he said. If anything, it was ‘counterproductive’ to the cause of justice.

    Much of the response to the killing of Freddie Gray was counterproductive, in fact. As the Harvard economists Roland Fryer and Tanaya Devi note in a forthcoming study, homicide rates have spiked in Baltimore since 2015. The same has been true for other American cities in which much publicised police-related deaths occurred. As a result of tight supervision, compounded by the fact that being a police officer in the United States is an incredibly dangerous job, police officers become less proactive in curbing crime. This has resulted in the loss of many black lives in Baltimore, Chicago, and beyond.

    Incidentally, Fryer revealed in an earlier study that there was no observable racial disparity during police-involved shootings. Political scientist Adolph Reed Jr has pointed out, in reference to a study conducted by Mike Males, that ‘police killings of black men under 25 years of age declined 79 per cent between 1968 and 2011, and 61 per cent for men over 25 during that same period’. (Reed, a black socialist, has inevitably since been cancelled.)

    It’s been popular to say for quite a while now that police violence in America is directed explicitly at black Americans – that the problem is ‘endemic’. Some are even as irresponsible as to say that blacks face ‘genocide’.

    Thus, when George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in an act that was universally condemned, the American media had a readymade explanation at hand – ‘white supremacy’ had once again reared its ugly head.

    And when the subsequent protests threatened to turn violent, Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey appeared to give his implicit okay to the rioting. As a consequence, the violence spun out of control, resulting in the deaths of dozens of people throughout the country and the wreckage of hundreds of businesses, many of them under black ownership.

    Then along came the American left with its awful hot takes excusing the looting. The carnage was, they assured us, as American as apple pie. However regrettable the property damage that was incurred – the deaths are hardly ever mentioned – much good will surely result from the events of the last several days. Even calls for the abolition of the police are now on the agenda.

    But as we’ve seen, the more likely outcome is that there is going to be a spike in homicides and property crimes across America. There is also no evidence that majority black neighborhoods will somehow bloom after they have just been razed and looted. If anything, the opposite is more realistic: these neighborhoods may not recover for decades; some might never recover at all.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Sorry, but I don’t feel guilty.


    “The Left’s Normalization Of Collective Guilt Is Ripping America Apart

    All decent Americans stand against racism. But if we’re to live as brothers, we must stop indicting all those who share a skin tone for the sins of others.”

    “I was nowhere near the intersection of Chicago Avenue and 38th Street when George Floyd tragically lost his life. I wasn’t in Minnesota. I was more than 500 miles away. With the exception of the officers at that heartbreaking scene, there are more than 329 million additional Americans who had no part in that terrible evening.

    So why are so many people acting as if it were their knee, not Derek Chauvin’s, that pressed down on George Floyd? The answer lies in the concerted effort of radical leftists and their unwitting accomplices to normalize the collectivization of guilt.

    The Great Guilting

    It’s nothing entirely new. In 1980, Howard Zinn and his Marxist, ahistorical, and repugnant textbook “A Peoples History of the United States” began mainstreaming the idea that Caucasians bore collective guilt for all of America’s past sins. By securing the blessings of the academic intelligentsia, he had support in the most valuable places.

    Thankfully, Zinn didn’t have modern-day social media at his disposal. One shudders to think how wide Zinn’s reach could have been with a few million followers on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. But if you’ve looked around the social media landscape recently, you’ve witnessed the unleashing of a radical movement beyond his wildest dreams.

    Leftist influencers have convinced millions of Americans that the only way they will be allowed in polite society, the only way they will be perceived as decent is if they accept culpability for Floyd’s death and the “systemically racist society” they apparently helped create.

    The radical left demands Caucasians apologize for their “privilege.” They must read, internalize, and publicly praise books on approved reading lists in order to come to grips with their “unconscious” and deep-seated racism. They must shop at black-owned businesses on sites like WeBuyBlack.com, theblackwallet.com, and shoppeblack.us as further proof of their solidarity. But is there much doubt that if the color was changed from “black” to “white,” that the Southern Poverty Law Center wouldn’t label these sites sources of hate?

    On June 2, Instagram was flooded with people posting pictures of black boxes in support of Black Lives Matter activists. Quickly, however, an ever-growing list of “suggestions” muddled the “rules” of who should post and in what manner was pleasing to the Blackout Tuesday folks. Actress and feminist activist Emma Watson was attacked on Twitter for both posting the boxes and for taking so long. You can’t win.

    Branded for the Sins of Others

    It is always good to remind people not to be racist—though it is doubtful just how much reminding is needed between the legacy media, television, and movies all constantly promoting that message.

    What’s sad is that so many good, utterly non-racist Americans feel if they don’t go through the “approved” steps they’ll be roped together with actual white supremacists.

    Not to be left out, businesses from coffee chains to game developers also feel they must denounce what we have always known to be evil, namely, the unwarranted taking of another human life.”


    But don’t worry, the left still adamantly supports killing black and brown babies. Those lives are meaningless to a leftist.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. I bow for no one except Jesus.

    And you shouldn’t either.


    “Be Courageous And Stand Firm, America—We Do Not Kneel

    Americans didn’t kneel to British tyranny, Nazi fascism, or Soviet communism. We won’t kneel for a collective guilt movement that’s gone off the rails.”

    “Those who live in the far north in author George R.R. Martin’s “A Song of Ice and Fire” novels live by one principle: “We do not kneel.” They call themselves the “Free Folk.”

    That used to be a label that was proudly worn by all Americans. But a still-too-unquestioned movement pushing guilt-by-associated-skin-tone has begun to undo one of this nation’s bedrock ideals.

    The kneeling phenomenon demanded by the radical left in the wake of George Floyd’s death—and embraced by those guilted into submission—creates a two-tiered social stratification of “kneelers” and “those who refuse to bend the knee” that’s wholly un-American.

    Mobs resulting from years of citizens saturated in “critical race theory” and grievance studies have pressured far too many into believing they bear guilt for the past sins of others. Now they kneel in fealty to that false reality or are exiled from society.

    Unfortunately, it’s also moved beyond just kneeling.

    A crowd in Webster, Massachusetts, recently forced Police Chief Michael Shaw to lie face-down on the ground for eight minutes. In Cary, North Carolina, a group of Caucasians washed the feet of black organizers to “ask for forgiveness.” Not to be outdone by the latest woke trends, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took a knee at a massive anti-racism protest at Parliament Hill in Ottawa.

    Worse, kneeling—either figuratively or literally—doesn’t even satisfy the mob.

    Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said all the “right” things to the radical leftists holding Guilt Court but was still heckled out of a public square for refusing to defund the police department. The truth is, even mobs tire of the readily subservient and easily obedient.

    ‘We Will Never Serve Your Gods’
    Deep down, we know kneeling in submission to the whims of mobs or tyrants is wrong. Both our ancient stories and our modern myths reflect this truth.

    Instead of bowing to the altar of collective guilt, our exemplars should be Hanania, Mishael, and Azaria—though most know them by their Babylonian names: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

    When Neo-Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II commanded all his officials to bow down before an immense golden idol, the three men refused. They knew the prescribed penalty, one that was far worse than mere social ostracization or bullying. Failure to bow meant incineration in a vast furnace.

    Yet they also knew that to prostrate oneself before something other than God was wrong. And so, they did not bow. They did not kneel. They stood firm for what they knew to be right. Ultimately, though they were cast into the superheated flames, they were saved by their faith. We know who the heroes were in that episode, and it wasn’t Nebuchadnezzar or the henchmen that followed through on his tyrannical orders.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Why doesn’t Black Lives Matter protest these black deaths at the hands of other blacks?

    There are far more of them than die at the hands of police. They’re outrage is selective indeed. All of this happened while they were protesting for George Floyd. Yet all I hear is crickets.

    Police aren’t the problem folks.


    “18 murders in 24 hours: Inside the most violent day in 60 years in Chicago

    “We’ve never seen anything like it, at all,” said Max Kapustin, the senior research director at the University of Chicago Crime Lab.”

    “A hardworking father killed just before 1 a.m.

    A West Side high school student murdered two hours later.

    A man killed amid South Side looting at a cellphone store at 12:30 p.m.

    A college freshman who hoped to become a correctional officer, gunned down at 4:25 p.m. after getting into an argument in Englewood.

    While Chicago was roiled by another day of protests and looting in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, 18 people were killed Sunday, May 31, making it the single most violent day in Chicago in six decades, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab. The lab’s data doesn’t go back further than 1961.

    From 7 p.m. Friday, May 29, through 11 p.m. Sunday, May 31, 25 people were killed in the city, with another 85 wounded by gunfire, according to data maintained by the Chicago Sun-Times.”

    In a city with an international reputation for crime — where 900 murders per year were common in the early 1990s — it was the most violent weekend in Chicago’s modern history, stretching police resources that were already thin because of protests and looting.

    “We’ve never seen anything like it, at all,” said Max Kapustin, the senior research director at the crime lab. “ … I don’t even know how to put it into context. It’s beyond anything that we’ve ever seen before.”

    The next highest murder total for a single day was on Aug. 4, 1991, when 13 people were killed in Chicago, according to the crime lab.”




    “What’s particularly striking is the reason why this happened. According to Rev. Michael Pfleger who has been a prominent left-wing activist in Chicago for decades, word got around that police were overwhelmed and were not responding to calls for help.

    “On Saturday and particularly Sunday, I heard people saying all over, ‘Hey, there’s no police anywhere, police ain’t doing nothing,’” Pfleger said.

    “I sat and watched a store looted for over an hour,” he added. “No police came. I got in my car and drove around to some other places getting looted [and] didn’t see police anywhere.”

    Pfleger warned that if something didn’t change May 31 could be just a preview of much worse to come. Max Kasputin from the U of Chicago Crime Lab told the Chicago Sun-Times, “When CPD has to turn its attention elsewhere and there’s suddenly this vacuum that opens up, you also unfortunately see a picture like you saw with [last] weekend where you see an absurd amount of carnage, people getting injured and killed.”

    Mayor Lori Lightfoot said even a police force four times the size of the current one couldn’t have handled the crisis the city faced that weekend. Chicago had 65,000 calls for service on May 31 alone, sometimes as many as 2,000 calls were coming in every thirty minutes. This is why some people who were shot that weekend couldn’t get through to police and wound up calling relatives to take them to the hospital.

    All of this seems to fly in the face of the current calls to defund and disband police. If one weekend of police absence resulted in the most deadly violence in 60 years, what should we expect when police budgets are slashed? Are social workers and counselors going to prevent armed people from shooting into crowds of strangers? Obviously not.

    So what do we expect will happen when criminals once again sense that there is a vacuum of police presence. Will everything carry on like normal or will this kind of violence escalate like it did the last weekend in May? I think we already have the answer to that question but it’s not clear that anyone is listening.

    Here’s a local news report on the weekend’s unprecedented violence.”


    Take responsibility for yourselves. It wasn’t the police rioting, and it wasn’t the police who said “stand down” to officers on the streets. That was the politicians. Own it, because ya’ll built this.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Barr has little credibility. He also said pepperball/pepperspray is a not a chemical irritant. News to anybody who’s been assaulted with pepper spray. Unless he has video evidence, I’m not inclined to believe a word about the crowds attacking the police. The overhead video of the confrontation shows about a six feet gap between police and demonstrators when the police charged the line and fired pepperballs. The violence was one sided and even foreign journalists were assaulted.


  11. I don’t necessarily think people are kneeling out of guilt or obedience. I’d kneel if I was at a demonstration in which everyone else did. Peer pressure does wonders even with adults. However, it would be a sign of respect and sympathy. I’m not sure if the biblical analogy works here — no one is being asked to bow in worship — only in sympathy, respect, or guilt.

    Police violence and racial bias is more than a murder rate. Although at 25% African American its still too high given African Americans are about 17% of the population. The racial bias is systemic. On a per capita basis, there are 5 times as many African Americans in prison than non-Hispanic white Americans. Predominately African American communities are “over policed” and subject to far more arbitrary misuse of power. Over policing leads to arbitrary ambiguous charges of loitering, public mischief, disorderly conduct, threatening, possession, resisting arrest, etc. African Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug charges despite the use of marijuana and other drugs being similar across all racial and class groups. Over policing leads to more charges simply to justify their existence and the cycle continues.

    A few days ago I left a link to an article that discussed the correlation between income and wealth inequality and the rise of “guard ” employment. The US has consistently responded to any crime with more punitive measures and more police and prisons yet it has the highest rate of violence in the OECD (outside of Mexico and Turkey who really shouldn’t be in the OECD). Perhaps lowering inequality may lower the need for police and prison. Its possible to cut police budgets and direct that money to health, housing, education, etc. Lowering the inequality through redistribution, heath care, and subsidized housing has been shown elsewhere in the world to lower societal violence.

    In addition defunding the police may force an attitude shift. Despite the presence of cell phone video everywhere, the police continue to act as if they have impunity – in part because they have. Accountability is missing. Force them to be accountable to the people not the people to them — and if they don’t, defund.



  12. You first…..

    Put your money where your mouth is….

    Lead by example….

    But they won’t, because they’re frauds.


  13. Hypocrite.



  14. Hwesseli, you suggest kneeling might be out of “sympathy, respect, or guilt.” None of those works here. Kneeling has never been a sign of sympathy. Kneeling to a peer to show respect is ridiculous. We also don’t kneel to show guilt (except to God) . . . and guilt for what? If I was in a crowd and everyone was kneeling, I would probably get down low to see why they are all kneeling. (Low airplane?!) But unless it’s a worship service, I wouldn’t be kneeling. (Actually, for the record, I wouldn’t be kneeling at a worship service, either, though I have been in people’s homes for small group meetings in which people end up kneeling to pray, and I have knelt in private to pray.) If it were a custom to bow on greeting another person, I wouldn’t have a problem with doing so. But no, I’m not going to kneel to suggest another citizen is superior to me or to express a guilt I don’t have.

    I will kneel before another person to serve him or with another person to worship together, but not to another person.

    Well, on 9/11, the first three planes were successfully hijacked and taken to their destinations. But the passengers on the fourth plane had time to think about it and said no, we aren’t going to passively accept this. May other Americans be prepared to say no, I will respect you as a human made in the image of God, but I will not kneel to you. May this be really short-lived stupidity.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. When watching football in the past, the boys knelt when there was an injury on the field. An indicator of compassion, perhaps, or because we live in a big Catholic area, perhaps to indicate prayer? Maybe just to keep them in place so the injury could be dealt with.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. As mumsee indicates kneeling doesn’t suggest subservience – it can suggest respect, compassion or a simple way to control the tempo. My daughter’s soccer team did the same thing — during an injury they took a knee. When I attended Catholic mass for Easter and Christmas with my ex-wife, I would kneel with everyone else at the appropriate times out of simple respect for their religious beliefs. There was no subservience or submission to Catholicism, I wold do the same in any other temple or church. If a protest included everyone taking a knee in memory of those killed or for any other reason, I would take a knee.


  17. ” it can suggest respect, compassion or a simple way to control the tempo”

    Still not kneeling.

    I don’t respect their “cause”, which is simply racism in reverse, as if that would make things right.

    I feel very little compassion for the rioters and destroyers of society. Pity maybe, but no reason to bow.

    And I won’t be “controlled” either.

    No thanks, I’ll stand.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I don’t respect the protesters as a group either—though I’m sure there are many respectable people participating. But in my opinion, they are either complicit or giving cover to violent anarchists. My cousins daughter and granddaughter in Atlanta attended the protests. The granddaughter was quick to accuse a family member of ‘white supremacy’ on FB because that person wanted to wait for more information. Crowds of weak heads and violence are a bad combo.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.