Fighting Back

Colin Kaepernick, the young NFL quarterback about whom I have previously posted, has shown remarkable integrity and fortitude dealing with the furor following his decision to 'take a knee' rather than stand for the U.S. national anthem. His action, to protest the brutalization of Black people at the hands of the authorities, has been roundly condemned by reactionaries for 'disrespecting the flag'. (The fact that 'taking a knee' has been a traditional show of respect by those entering Catholic church pews, I guess, is neither here nor there in this fraught environment.)

That Kaepernick no longer has a team to play for reveals much about systemic racism, both in the league and throughout America. Now, he has decided to fight back. He has filed a grievance against the NFL on Sunday, alleging that he remains unsigned as a result of collusion by owners following his protests during the national anthem.

Geragos & Geragos official statement on @Kaepernick7 who we are proud to represent pic.twitter.com/c0Jr1ugNV1

— Mark Geragos (@markgeragos) October 16, 2017

It would take mental gymnastics worthy of a denizen of Nineteen Eight-Four not to be able to see the cause-and-effect at work in the erstwhile quarterback's ongoing unemployment:

Kaepernick's supporters believe he's being punished for protesting police brutality by refusing to stand during the national anthem last season. This movement has spread throughout the NFL this season, drawing sharp criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

Last week, CBS Sports reporter Jason La Canfora said that Kaepernick would be willing to go anywhere to work out for a team and wanted to be judged solely on his football ability.

While a difficult grievance to actually prove, all the evidence points in the direction of the NFL owners blackballing him:

San Francisco safety Eric Reid, Kaepernick's former teammate, has been kneeling during the anthem before games, including Sunday's 26-24 loss at the Washington Redskins.

"I'll have to follow up with him," Reid said after the game. "It sure does seem like he's being blackballed. I think all the stats prove that he's an NFL-worthy quarterback. So that's his choice and I support his decision. We'll just have to see what comes of it."

The NFL players' union said it would support the grievance, which was filed through the arbitration system that's part of the league's collective bargaining agreement.

Colin Kaepernick is clearly a deeply principled person who is likely running a real risk of further repercussions as he pursues this grievance. But that is often how the finest manifestations of personal integrity work, isn't it?

What A Great Legacy

Jimmy Carter will not be remembered as one of the great U.S. presidents, but when his long life ends, he will be remembered for something much more meaningful: great humanitarian and environmentalist:

On Human Resilience

In a world growing increasingly grim, it is easy to succumb to cynicism and defeatism. That is why stories like the following need to be told, to remind us that there is much, much more to human nature than the darkness we so regularly see. Young Tori Brinkman attests to this:

Apocalypse Explained

American news likes to focus only on the human drama that ensues when disaster strikes. In contrast, Global National, clearly less fettered by corporate fiat, takes the time to analyse the reasons behind the disaster. The following report by Eric Sorenson explains the science behind the apocalypse engulfing California, and yes, that science includes the use of a term one almost never hears in mainstream media south of the border, climate change.

Lest We Forget

San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz reminds us of some unpleasant truths:

San Juan mayor responds to Trump's Puerto Rico tweets: "This isn't politics. This is about saving lives." https://t.co/9CA3Ips4Aq

— CNN (@CNN) October 13, 2017

Responding To "Suppressing Dissent" - A Guest Post

This morning I received a comprehensive commentary from BM, who was responding to my post Suppressing Dissent, which expressed criticism of the visit by Sidney Crosby and the Pittsburgh Penguins' visit to the Donald Trump White House. If you missed it, you may wish to read it before enjoying BM's post below.

Following his comments, I reproduce my response. As always, I welcome a diversity of views:

This is about the most ridiculous post I've seen here. It's outright stupid. And mean-spirited to boot.

Immersed as we are in US culture, apparently Canadians think we are Americans. That is the only explanation I can come up with that eplains the moaning that Crosby should have snubbed the White House visit to in effect tell Trump off.

In what strange reality do you live? Seriously. Crosby, like any foreigner earning a living overseas remains in that foreign country at the forebearance of its government. He has no "right" to be there. And anyone with a thinking brain would realize that he has no right to insert himself in that foreign country's domestic affairs. Unless he wishes to commit career suicide.

The fuzzy thinking I've been exposed to in the media and now here on this matter is to me beyond belief. I'll say it again, neither we or Crosby are American. Therefore, he did what was necessary which was to sidestep the issue. Does Trudeau do any better?

To project your hopes and aspirations onto Crosby is ridiculous, and carries not one penny's worth of logical weight. To compound your profound disappointment, you slyly and snidely suggest he didn't stand up like the man you wish him to be because he is susceptible to concussion. That, I'm afraid, is contemptible.

Then we get the usual mishmash of snobby Upper Canadian finger-pointing about the way Nova Scotia was some 90 or more years ago. Yessir, we're all dumb racist hayseeds down here. We've got a lot to answer for, to be sure, about the way we have and still do treat blacks, but that requires no preachy lectures from Ontario pseudo intellectuals. Is Ontario blame free on its treatment of the indigenous population, or the current way blacks are treated in the GTA? I think not.

There is even a factual error about Africville. The "government" did not move Africville, the City of Halifax did. It has issued an apology to former Africville residents redolent of the same half-hearted and certainly not heartfelt apologies that Harper and Trudeau have given to indigenous people. Not good enough. We can and should do better.

The Coloured Hockey League's existence came back to light in 2012 locally. I'd never heard of it myself, and can think of no reason that Crosby growing up in Cole Harbour, a newish Dartmouth suburb should have either. Is it the responsibility of sentient citizens to continually check the historical record for signs of past societal sins and having found one, immediately do abject penance?

Furthermore, with the more recent ramp-up on the Coloured Hockey League, it comes to light that many prominent black citizens here missed the 2012 announcements when a book on the matter was published. On CBC Radio and TV, we have seen such people interviewed who were as ignorant of the CHL as anyone else, but glad to see it come to light again. What chance did Crosby have of knowing this story as he grew up, or me for that matter? Maybe we're both concussed.

I can detail what I and others did for the black community near the town I lived in here in NS way back in the early 1960s. With no internet, not a soul was running around brimming with knowledge of past injustices province-wide. We acted on what we saw, and we prevailed against prejudice.

This business of judging past history by today's standards without a thought to interpretation is surely the curse of the modern age. To compound the ignorance with the ruminations and innuendo you present here is poor work indeed.

My Response:

Clearly, my post struck a nerve here, BM, and you are certainly not alone in thinking that Crosby in particular, and Canadians in general, have no business opining on American politics. Former CBC News executive producer Mark Bulgutch penned an opinion piece in the Star on the weekend suggesting Canadians should restrict our observations and actions to our own backyard.

Again, because there really is no precedent for the kind of lunacy we are currently witnessing south of the border, I maintain that everyone has, at the very least, a moral obligation not to lend even a scintilla of legitimacy to such a dysfunctional administration.

Because I always welcome diverse views and opinions, I am taking the liberty, BM, of featuring your commentary as a guest post.

Too High A Price To Pay

This year, The Star has been running an Atkinson Series entitled The New Newsroom, which looks at both the challenges and the possibilities facing journalism in this age of Internet freebies. It is an excellent series that I hope you get a chance to check out. Here is an excerpt from a recent installment and the theme of today's post:

When the news industry and its supporters seek government funding to give it time to find a new business model, it’s because of the role news plays in maintaining a strong society — protecting democracy, in the phrase often used. If we don’t know what our governments are doing, we don’t control them. If we don’t know that hospitals have long waiting lists, we can’t find a solution. If we don’t know a development is planned, we can’t fight to protect the green space instead. Without information, we can’t have knowledgeable conversations with each other. We don’t have a voice. Our communities then belong to the powerful.

It is one of the key reasons I subscribe to The Toronto Star, which has a remarkable record in effecting change at the local, provincial and federal levels thanks to its many investigative reports. Without those investigations, public awareness of problems and injustices would have been quite limited.

To read a daily newspaper is to facilitate something all citizens should have: critical thinking skills. Without those skills, and without the information needed to inform those skills, we really are at the mercy of forces that would prefer us to be in darkness so they can carry out their agendas, agendas that rarely coincide with the public good. A column today on increases to the provincial minimum wage by provincial affairs reporter Martin Regg Cohn amply illustrates this fact.

Despite the scare stories, a proposed $15 hourly wage in 2019 is proving wildly popular. By all accounts, it is a vote-winner.

The usual suspects are upset: TD Bank, Loblaws, Metro, the Chamber of Commerce and the small business lobby are warning higher wages will hit hard, and hurt the working poor by costing them jobs.

It’s a recurring tale of two competing victimhoods — businesses at risk and jobs in jeopardy — but people aren’t buying it. The old fable about the boy (or business) who cried wolf is a hard sell when few believe the wolf is at the door.

Were the business perspective our sole source on this issue, we would likely be inclined to believe the hike is going to wreck our economy. Having a countervailing view assists us in making a more measured judgement. And, as Cohn points out, there are other factors to consider here, such as societal consensus:

Perhaps people are waking up to the impact of poverty amidst plenty. And are prepared to pay more at their local Dollarama — rebrand it Toonierama if need be.

Canadians who were content to live alongside the working poor are increasingly sensitized to the argument for a living wage. Times change.

For the longest time, people put up with second-hand cigarette smoke, drove while drunk, forgot their seat belts, or sneered at nerds who wore helmets for motorcycling, cycling, hockey or skiing. Now, cigarettes are taboo, drunk driving is anathema, seat belts are the law, and helmets are de rigeur.

Add to that some hard facts that demonstrate the one-sidedness of the business argument that the sky will soon fall:

A previous column about the business lobby pointed to the flaws in outdated econometric modelling that vainly tries to foretell future job losses from doomsday scenarios. Their conclusions are contradicted by more advanced research that looks retrospectively at recent history, showing negligible or unmeasurable impacts from minimum wage hikes.

Yet major retailers keep warning that automation is the inevitable result of higher wages. Been to a Loblaws, Sobeys, or Canadian Tire recently? Seen those automated check-out counters, even at today’s minimal minimum wage?

Automation is inevitable. Lowering the minimum wage won’t bring back full-service gas station attendants, or persuade the banks to remove automated tellers from your local branch.

Economic disruptions are also unpredictable. Even if business scaremongering about a wage hike were remotely true (at the margins), the reality is that a rapid increase in interest rates would have far more impact, as would a collapse in the housing market.

We all have our biases and values. The fact that I subscribe to The Star attests to mine. However, I also am free to reading countervailing views from conservative and pro-business organs like the National Post and The Globe and Mail, and frequently I will not dismiss out-of-hand some of their perspectives. The point is, however, that the more information I acquire from a legitimate news source, as opposed to fringe Internet sites that feel no obligation to abide by the rules of evidence and reason, the more equipped I am to draw reasoned conclusions.

Journalists do the heavy lifting for all of us. To lose them would be to lose any chance to have a healthy and sustainable democracy. That is surely too high a price to pay.