Wednesday, February 10, 2021

To hate America now that spring is here

Or perhaps more seasonally appropriate, now is the winter of our dissing America.  So Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA team The Dallas Mavericks, has confirmed what anyone watching basketball had noticed.  That is, he has banned playing the United States National Anthem before his team's games

So there you go.  One of the greatest coups of the Left's war against the Christian West was its alliance with Corporate America.  Why are so many corporations jumping on board the various devices of the Left?  The anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Male, anti-White, anti-undesirable, anti-God and even anti-Equality bandwagons that are becoming SOP in 2021 Leftism? 

Hard to say.  My boys think it's because a global market is worth more than an American one.  And  in a world where, despite multicultural narratives, oppression, terror, tyranny, slavery, genocide, discrimination and persecution are still as common as bad reality TV is in our country, it might be tough to justify making money off such nations in the same way it would have been tough making money off Nazi Germany during the early 1940s.

The smart business solution?  Join in the Left's attempts to portray the Christian West and American Experiment as the font of all evil in the world; as the most wicked, depraved, infamous and heartless civilization that ever existed.  After all, what right do Americans have to complain when they see American corporations milking China for what money they can all while China continues to slaughter, oppress and terrorize anyone and anything in its path?  Hey!  This is America, the most evil and deplorable nation in history people!  Back off and stop being hypocrites.  

Perhaps.  It certainly makes sense.  But whatever the reason, one thing is sure: Corporations and CEOs and other wealthy power players are embracing the death of the West for the same reason anyone in the market does anything - the bottom line.  Whatever financial hit we think they might take, they've run the numbers and concluded it's worth it for the overall benefit of the all important bottom line. 

That's what happens when we conservatives spent so many years defending corporate interests in the name of Capitalism at whatever cost.   For some reason, we forgot that if we defend the 'it's the bottom line' principle as the all important principle of everything, there might be a time when the bottom line is best served by those market interests destroying everything else we hold dear.  Live and learn I suppose. 


  1. I'm pretty sure the pre-game national anthem wasn't broadcast, so it would not have had an effect on an international market. I know in football games they have not broadcast it for years -- the exception being the Super Bowl; you might get the coin flip, but otherwise that time is used to make obvious statements about what each team needs to do to win and, of course, for commercials.

    Nor do I think the BLM stuff endears the NBA to China. From what I gather, this just confirms to them that Americans are nuts; an opinion I find hard to refute.

    1. I often don't see the anthem played on TV. Had he done nothing it wouldn't have been a big deal, since we usually don't see it anyway. But by him purposefully not doing it, he's making a statement. And my boys' theory isn't that he, or James, or any of the corporate interests are trying to curry favor with China by trashing America. It's that they're trying to trash America in the minds of the American consumer so that nobody then has a right to complain that they are sucking up to the Chinese market.

    2. Re: Mark Cuban, he only ever makes one statement, regardless of how it might sound, and that is, "LOOK AT ME!!!!" As I'm sure you know, the guy's got a history. He might be able to manage a Dairy Queen, but not one which I would patronize.

      I suspect much of the posturing by the left, including LeBron James, is the same. They're taking very safe positions that they know will cost them nothing, but they want to be given the credit for being martyrs. Kaepernick is their MVP. He gets credit for being one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL and he never has to risk being criticized for throwing an interception, nor does he risk injury from taking a hit. Meanwhile he gets $$$ from Nike for doing absolutely nothing. Some martyr.

      One way or another, the NBA made it clear ages ago who their target audience is and who it isn't. The NFL has followed their example. Having driven all the Conservatives away, why shouldn't they go all the way to the left? That's assuming that "Conservatives" really stand by their principles for more than a couple of months at a time.

    3. True that. It could just be the finger in the air and assumption that it's the safe bet; the bold crusade that costs nothing and risks nothing. Like making fun of black people 100 years ago. But if that's what they think, I fear they're correct.

    4. 100 years ago, people actually believed in that whole "sticks and stones" thing. So yes, blacks were made fun of. And the Irish. And the English. And the French. And the Italians. And the Spanish. And the American Indians. And the white southerners. And the white northerners. I have specific examples in mind from not 100 years ago, but from Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies 70-90 years ago; you have probably seen the same cartoons.

      It's not so bad if everyone is playing tackle football, but it's a different story when one side is playing tackle football and the other side only gets to play flag football. The difference is that today, every American is a Prussian barbarian, and "He cannot, I think, conceive the idea that is the foundation of all comedy; that, in the eyes of the other man, he is only the other man."

    5. That's an excellent point. Sticks and Stones was SOP when I was a kid. It was taught in schools. But somewhere, by the time I was out of college, it had turned to 'Words Hurt'. Somewhere in that span of time things changed. I'll think on that more, but it's definitely different. It put me in mind of the vets who were interviewed for Ambrose's Band of Brothers, how they admitted they would verbal trash each other - Jew, Irish, Italian, German. Notably Blacks weren't included in that mix, and I have no problem acknowledging the unique history that black Americans have. But it rested on the idea that words should not be the same as murder (even if, per Jesus, there could be a case made).

  2. Well... there is what people think conservatives believe, and what is actually believed.

    Let me see if I can put it this way: I have a bit of an issue with animal rights activists that opposing domestication farming. (Yes, I have had relatives who dairy farmed.) For one aspect of it, I wonder whether taking the cow, and tossing it out into the woods to fend for itself against diseases and predators is really an improvement over being cared for, bred, and having offspring protected & provided for by the farmer. Sure, the cow still ends up as meat someday, but they were going to in the wild as well. At least in theory the slaughterhouse will try to make the death quick and painless - which is not how it usually goes beyond the fence.

    And if you think that somehow thousands of heads of cattle are just going to be cared for by people for no benefit (like a modern dog or cat)... I'm not sure you've actually calculated how expensive that's going to be.

    This isn't to say I'm not sympathetic to the points or ideas - I just question whether throwing an animal into the wild is really beneficial to it compared to domestication. And when you look at it in this way, it makes you want to ask yourself: who is really "pro" animal?

    I say all THAT to make this metaphor make more sense: Liberals want to domesticate businesses. Conservatives want to free businesses into the wild. So which one is actually more pro-corporation?

    See also.

    1. I don't think there's any question which side favors a free market and which doesn't. But I still am convinced that the blind blank-check that conservatives fought for in the name of defending the FM was clearly wrong on some level. What the solution could have been I don't know. Perhaps too many confused defending the interests of corporate profits too the exclusion of competition or even morality. I can remember more than once conservatives circling the wagons around things that were clearly not good in the name of the Market. Now, of course, it's clearly worth the bottom line to take so many things conservatives value - if not conservatives themselves - and send them to the cornfield. So just what could have been done different is likely beyond my guessing. That something should have been done different by now should be obvious.


Let me know your thoughts