Dangerous Times?

Apparently some Major League catcher was suspended for the remainder of the season, without pay, by his team.  His offense?  He tweeted some comments about the riots in Charlotte, NC that apparently some folks might find offensive.  I haven't seen the entire tweet, but what I did read might be offensive to some, but that's not the point.  This AM I read that a reporter in Charlotte, either USA Today or CNN (I am not sure which) was also suspended for a month.  His crime was to tweet to tell drivers to avoid using I-277 because mobs were shutting down the freeway and then surrounding cars.  What is wrong with that, other than preventing some people from getting hurt or, as one of the rioters has been already, killed?

Is this what we've come to in the USA?  If some people are offended by remarks or writings, the "offenders" are fired or suspended?  How can we engage in meaningful dialogue if people are afraid of being on "the wrong side" and getting punished (suspension or dismissal) for it?

This is disturbing.  The NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem offend a lot of people, a whole lot of them.  Not only are they not at all punished, they are lauded.  And this from a league that has a good number of drug abusers, women beaters, and others charged and/or convicted of assault.  I would think I won't be watching any of the NFL games tomorrow.  (OK, you caught me.  I haven't watched any at all yet this season.)

Why is it that there are consequences if certain people are offended, but none if certain other people are offended?  For that matter, will there be consequences for those who have not "protested," but rioted?  A number of reporters have told of stores being looted, with the mobsters heading right to the beer and wine, the cigarettes, and the cash registers.  If so much is found on cell phone, uploaded to You Tube, etc., surely those who commit acts of violence that ruin other people's homes and businesses, not to mention shooting others, can also be discovered--if the authorities are at all interested in finding them.


For that matter, have any of those people who have tweeted, "Kill all white cops" or "White cops are devils" or other such stuff been disciplined or dismissed from jobs?  Wouldn't this be especially appropriate since in some of the past few shootings, not all, it's been black officers who did the shootings?

I don't remember the number or specifics, but haven't some college/university professors also been dismissed or otherwise disciplined for taking unpopular stances?  On college campuses!  But, as the recent decades have proven, perhaps the least tolerant places in the US are colleges and universities, precisely the places that are supposed to be the market place of ideas, many ideas, popular and otherwise.

Why are we so quick to rush to judgment about these police shootings?  Even in the past week or so, with the terrorist attacks in Minn, NY, NJ, didn't we hear from our leaders (and I say that, "leaders," with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek) not to do just that, "Don't rush to judgment about terrorism?"  And in our rush to judgment, how many times, when the facts become known, the original judgments are wrong, very wrong?  Yet, don't judge the terrorist attacks.

For that matter, a Detroit police officer died a week ago, from gunshot wounds from a thug, a car jacker.  I'm still waiting for the protests about that.  Where are the black leaders or Black Lives Matter?  Where are the NFL players and all those college kids so concerned about lives?
In this same vein, how about this one?  What if, heaven forbid, Clinton wins in November?  (OK, it's also "heaven forbid" if Trump wins!)  Trump supporters, despite the attempts to portray them all as "racists" and "bigots," will be very disappointed.  Many, I'd even say most, Trump supporters have come to him, not because they are "racists" and "bigots," but as an alternative to the Establishment and politics and government that have alienated them.  The wealthy, well I'm not sure they need much help, but they can buy politicians and bureaucrats--and apparently often do.  The poor are covered with blanket after blanket of security, whether deserved or not, that is, from gaming the system.  Many in the middle are left out in this ocean of despair, fighting to face the trials and tribulations of daily life, something the German Romanticists called "sturm und drang," storm and stress.  They feel as if they have been abandoned, while others get all of the help.  They have tried the system, playing by the rules, but have been again and again stabbed in the back by the Establishment.  So then, in the face of all this, if Trump loses what if the Trumpsters riot, er, protest?  (You know what the Lamestreams will label it.)  Will they get the "Get Out of Jail Free" cards?  Will they avoid any accountability or responsibility for their actions?  In a sense, any such reaction will be far, far closer to the "protests" of 245 or so years ago, the colonists displeased with the government they were getting from the British Parliament and King--and their bureaucrats.  But well all know, from history, that all those Founders were just old, rich, white men.

So, Ted Cruz has finally endorsed Don Trump--or so I heard.  I find that very disappointing.  OK, I would guess that, as young as Cruz is, if he has any hopes of future runs for the White House, he has to get in the good graces of the Republican Establishment.  But how disappointing!  One of the things that made Cruz so appealing was his stand on principles, pushing back against the lame Republican Establishment.  The endorsement seems to indicate that he's allowed politics to "trump" principles.  We find out that, when push comes to shove, Cruz is just another politician.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  But I am disappointed.

I know this got me in a lot of hot water with folks, far more than any of my other blog posts!, when I suggested that Kid Rock had a lousy voice, did not sing well, etc.  I didn't say others couldn't like him or that he wasn't a good guy or that he didn't do good things for Detroit and Michigan, just that he really couldn't sing very well.  You'd think I was as dastardly as John Lemon of the Beagles when he said, "We're more popular that Jesus."  (Did he really say that?)  Well, here I go again.  I heard Bruce Springsteen a couple of times on the radio this AM.  First, there are some of his songs (?) I like, that I really like.  I like how they sound; I like to dance to some of them.  But he sure has a lousy voice.  One of the songs that came on I had heard before, many times, but I had no idea what its title was--I couldn't understand the words, which apparently repeated the title again and again.  I only discovered it when the DJ said it.  OK, there are some Springsteen things that are junk, just like some of Bob Seger's stuff isn't very good.  But, I repeat, there are Springsteen things I like and even have a CD or two of his.  Coming on right afterward were a couple of Prince tunes.  I don't care much for the stuff he wrote and sang, but there were a couple that I rank pretty high on my list of favorites.  But as a singer (even a writer?), he wasn't all that good.  Even 1999, one of my favorites, isn't sung very well and includes a bunch of guttural moans and grunts that, well, what is their meaning?

It really is amazing that the Tigers are still in the hunt for a playoff spot with how sporadic and mediocre their bullpen has been.  I wonder how many games have been blown by the relievers.