Of course the U.S President of the United States, Donald Trump, should have ceased reactionary tweeting when he took office at the White House. Of course he should not have waded into this anthem kneeling chicanery enacted by NFL players through twitter. However; he is entitled to have an opinion with respect to protocols, conduct, and assembly of Americans in witness to the ceremony of the country’s national anthem.
Americans exercising their civil liberty are entitled to their opinion regarding each others’ conduct. If a citizen has a grudge to bear against their country, they have the freewill to express themselves within their law abiding rights. Each American has the autonomy to choose which way they wish to fight their civil battles within their rights. I suspect that many Americans lacking weekly television exposure while administering their own rights for justice would rather see NFL players take their grievance(s) to the appropriate forum for resolution rather than grandstanding in front of folks enthusiastic about watching some football.
I, personally, stopped watching football in 2014 upon learning of an NFL player beating his wife in a casino elevator. There was much ado about whether the player should be suspended by the league or not. The story line had morphed from the strategy of defensive alignment, pass protection, finger tip end zone catches, and fourth down late game conversions into a gong show about the conduct of privileged elite players having difficult managing themselves.
I’m not sure that the Sikh, the Muslim, the single low income mother, or the senior on a fixed income get much civic pride out of the Calgary Flames Eric. You’re a hockey fan and I believe someone who has earned a livelihood in one form or another from the good ‘ol hockey game with an apparent bias toward a new rink when this city already has one. The demographics in this city are changing and the aforementioned groups don’t jump like city councillors at some bargaining tactic by Ken King. The utilization of tax money for special interest groups has been with us for far too long and the appetite for tolerating this form of “extortion” has evaporated! Nenshi’s notion of tax money for the public benefit of all is a credible principle of which this proposal breaches. No teary eyed victim like threat from spokespersons of multimillionaire owners are going to trump the spirit of fairness owed to taxpayers.
It’s called grandstanding and Colin Kaepernick knew very well that he put his employment security in jeopardy the moment he decided to dishonor his country by kneeling during the Star Spangled Banner. Once Colin gets a few more years behind him and matures, he will come to realize that causes and issues need to be addressed through the hard work of active participation and not the simplified approach of convenient protest. There are very few perfect places on the planet where justice is served at every turn but an open democratic process is available to Colin should he decide that the cause so dear to him that he decides to seriously engage with the help of fellow constituents. Of his fellow Americans who have been versed in legal process and empathetic to his cause, I would think that the New York Police Department would condemn his tactic and instead rally to his cause in a fashion representative of the democratic administrative apparatus available to all Americans. Protests have their place when conducted civilly as reinforcement to the aforementioned process citizens can access due to their citizenship right. Once one denounces their anthem, their credibility is questioned and any employer rightfully ponders the character of such applicant.
Here we go again. Now that Khadr has been awarded $10 million dollars in lieu protections inherent to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, next up is some malcontents working over at Canada’s spy agency. Apparently a group of four is looking for $35 million from you the taxpayer because they were called names in the work place. They were likely bullied. It’s probably true. Unlike other Canadians who have been in such situations who would have tendered their resignation and moved along, these folks have learned some things that I bet you never picked up in grade school regarding “The Charter”. Forget free speech or supervisor’s incompetence in dealing with complaints. Now it’s “The Charter” which could potentially impact you the taxpayer for years and years to come because of the evil nature of some of your fellow Canadians.
This will be a very interesting case because it could be precedent setting for any employer and not just the civil service. Employers dismissive of deploying proactive positive work place climates or who become lax in executing such measures could be faced with law suits from the “victimized”. This could be just one more overlay of business risk which would likely disenfranchise many employers from hiring. Obviously I do not condone or tolerate racism, bigotry, harassment or discrimination in the work place but I am one Canadian who believes in the free enterprise system and the activities inherent to keeping such a system vibrant. I believe that any Canadian who does not feel that they are treated properly should seek out a climate or create one that does. I also believe that any organization which tolerates behavior of the aforementioned is doomed for failure because of the inherent morale and productivity issues that consequently arise. Whistle blower legislation providing employment security for complainants in the civil service is a reasonable measure.
This taxpayer is getting sick and tired of paying off the malcontents. If you don’t like a situation, leave it but don’t come looking for my wallet because you were too lame to put the free enterprise system to work for you.
So why does Donald Trump Jr. feel compelled to hire a criminal defence attorney if there was nothing unscrupulous, unethical, or illegal about his meeting with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin during his father’s election campaign? Why should he need a lawyer when at every turn regarding the Russian investigation, Donald Trump, the President is espousing “fake news?” What is one to think when the President’s son in law makes oversights on disclosure forms regarding contacts with Russian officials? Why would an attorney general of the U.S. also withhold information relevant to contacts with Russia? Why would a U.S. attorney general be receiving payments from Russia? Why would the President of the U.S. even consider a son in law for such position of “adviser” when a volume of other candidates would be much better equipped for the role? What is one to think when the President’s son is forced to reconcile his motive behind a meeting once information comes to light via Trump’s ex-campaign manager, Manafort that the intention was to acquire Democratic campaign party dirt? If there had been Clinton damaging campaign material provided to Donald Trump Jr. via this meeting with the Russian lawyer, what would he have done with it in the event that the material was elicited through surreptitious means? Why is Russia afforded any diplomatic grace at all in the context of operating under U.S. sanctions for the incursion of Crimea? Why can’t we get the straight goods from the President of the U.S. regarding his absolute position of Russian election meddling given that the FBI has proven that Russia in fact attempted to interfere? Does the president not subscribe to findings made by the FBI? Is the President privy to evidence unavailable to the FBI? Has President Trump been briefed on the evidence behind the FBI’s conclusion that Russia attempted to interfere in the election? If not, why not? Could it be that the FBI is mistrustful of the president given what they’ve already discovered? Is the relationship between the White House and the FBI now fractious in the context of Comey’s firing? Is President Trump reticent to besmirch Putin in lieu of President Trump’s business activities in Russia? Why would President Trump in private ask fired FBI Chief Comey to stop the Russian investigation in spite of material evidence if the President didn’t have something to hide? Did the President have something to hide inside his tax return regarding Russian income sources? Why all the buffoonery over a tax return and not just disclose it? Why the kind words toward the leader (Putin) of a corrupt occupying nation of a sovereign state during an election campaign?
