Anthem protests

I was saddened to see the National Post publish and give front-page coverage to Scott Stinson’s column about the issue of players kneeling during the national anthem, primarily in the NFL, in which he somehow found a way to accuse the Pittsburgh Penguins of racism. It was a baseless cheap shot unworthy of him and the National Post. I have no objection to the Pittsburgh Penguins visiting the White House. It is true that there are “other ways” that they can disagree with the president’s policies or politics but it is important that some or all of them exercise those “other ways.” One way would be for some of them to wear a blue ribbon or some other symbol during their visit to the White House. A blue ribbon indicates support for the American Civil Liberties Union and was worn by many celebrities and others during the recent Emmy Awards ceremony. Another way would be to remain in the locker room or tunnel during the playing of the national anthem like their colleagues, the Pittsburgh Steelers. It would be an important gesture if a predominantly white team indicated support for a predominantly African-American team in the same city. If President Trump wished to disinvite them because of that gesture, it would be his decision. The Canadian media almost unanimously sympathizes with black athletes who refuse to stand for the national anthem in the U.S. In the 1970s, the same media was highly critical of those fans with separatist leanings who refused to stand for our national anthem before the start of hockey and baseball games. Tempora mutantur. There is a clear simple solution to reduce the hysteria on U.S. national anthem controversy. I confess that I watch more European soccer games than North American sports. No anthem is played at British league games and even at UEFA Champions League among countries. National anthems are played only at the World Cup every four years. A similar method could be instituted in the United States: anthem at baseball World Series, Super Bowl etc only. Progress, which is a pro-nuclear advocacy group. The study treats a cubic metre of used solar panels as being equivalent to a cubic metre of spent uranium. Using the volume of the entire solar panel itself does not give you an accurate measurement because it is including the parts of the solar panel that are non-toxic and recyclable. In addition, the study only compares the toxic wastes produced by volume and not by toxicity. could still be accepted. Surely this would be a better option than Black’s hoped for “pre-emptive strike” against North Korea’s artillery systems, which are trained on the city of Seoul and thus would almost certainly cause vast civilian casualties.

Black also claims that North Korea “successfully cheated three American administrations” by continuing its nuclear program. Actually, North Korea dismantled its program under an agreement with the Clinton administration that involved a cessation of U.S. aggression — an agreement that was unilaterally shredded in an erratic move by George Bush Jr., leading North Korea predictably to resume its program.

Trump’s recent war-mongering rhetoric has again resulted in a predictable uptick in missile launches and counter threats. In short, as any charitable observer of history can surmise, North Korea’s nuclear program is designed as a deterrent against U.S. aggression, which is why it predictably escalates and de-escalates in response to U.S. aggression. After all, North Koreans tend to remember the carpet bombing and war crimes committed by the U.S. during the Korean War, even if Mr. Black doesn’t.