Green Party thought leaders, "People's Republic" leftists practice twosiderism on Beijing and Hong Kong

It may indeed be true, as Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers claim, though they don't use this exact phrasing, that the recent Hong Kong riots are like the 2000 Brooks Brothers "riot" in Florida over the presidential election. It may also be true, as another piece at Popular Resistance claims, that folks like the National Endowment for Democracy is among people involved with promoting the riots.

That doesn't meant that they have to link to a servile piece of Western "socialism" that seems to think China's Belt and Road initiative is even close to the greatest thing since sliced bread. Said link says nothing about how in South Asia and Africa, the Belt and Road is seen as being about as neocolonialist as anything the US and UK has ever done, nor that many sub-Saharan Africans see the Chinese as being about as racist as Americans and British.

The link at least gives up the game in admitting that the Chinese long view is re-integrating Taiwan as well as Macau and Hong Kong.

It doesn't tell you that, even if Taiwan was originally semi-dicatatorially governed by Chiang Kai-Shek et al, that since his death, other parties have democratically governed and have been led by Taiwanese natives.

Nor do I have to accept their attempts to spin an AP story about Twitter shutting down some fake accounts and why.

Nor do I have to accept the claims of Zeese and Flowers that the protests haven't gotten organized labor involved. Per a MUCH more nuanced piece by Jacobin, the protests have failed to draw in non-Chinese migrant laborers, tis true, but Hong Kong Chinese students have been involved with the protests from early on. This is NOT a "Brooks Brothers riot." In addition, though also ignored by the thought leaders? Many of these migrant workers have been pressured by their home countries not to participate. So, a Filipino making double (net) money in Hong Kong vs back home? Zeese and Flowers need to be blaming Manila (and Jakarta et al) and not Beijing.

And, as far as income inequality? Hong Kong may be horrible, but ... mainland China is about the same as the US, per Wiki.

Stuff like this is why, to the degree I am a socialist, I call myself a post-capitalist and NOT an anti-capitalist.

I reject Hegelian dialectic as bad philosophy and as pseudoscience when given a materialism quick rinse and used as the framework for a theory of economics, in addition to economic theorizing before behavioral economics in general already being close to pseudoscience.

Beyond that, on the twosiderism?

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has now said the CHINESE GOVERNMENT tried to get him to fire Rockets GM Daryl Morey. Let that sink in.

I'll also admit, lest I get slammed too hard on the charge of motivated reasoning, that I had not thought of the possibility of NED involvement. At the same time, to claim this is ONLY, or nearly only, a "billionaires' riot" sounds over the top.

Beyond rejecting twosiderism and rejecting any economic thinking that comes close to Marxism, I also reject reflexive anti-Americanism in opining about foreign policy. Note that bold-faced word "reflexive."

I have no problem criticizing American policy where it's wrong, whether wrong on explicit American exceptionalism grounds, Coca-colonialism or something else. But, to automatically assume it's wrong, and worse, to pull out the twosiderism and assume there's only two sides and the other is automatically right?

No dice.

That's why, several years ago, I stopped reading Counterpunch for a few years.

I know, per a guy I started following on Twitter before realizing he's from the People's Republic of Humboldt Bay, California, that the Zeese/Flowers link is almost two months old.

Doesn't matter. It was laden with twosiderism at the time.

As for said person from the PRHB? He claims China isn't imperialist. The pro-Chinese imperialist running dog (I see what I did) also claims that Uyghur-repressing China is especially dedicated to world peace. That would be the Xinjiang that was independent in the 1940s (and had not belonged to most Chinese dynastic empires — the Mongol Yuan and peak-era Qing Manchus are the only once to contain it in more than 1,000 years until today's China) until Communist, I mean state-capitalist, Bejing took it back over.

I don't know if this is more the People's Republic of Humboldt Bay being that idiotic, or if it's an alleged anti-capitalist actually being a grifter for a few yuan. Said Chinese lackey also claims Beijing doesn't practice Coca-colonialism. No, it practices ethnic and cultural colonialism, as anybody aware of the state-sponsored moving of Han Chinese to Xinjiang knows.

Rainer Shea is also refudiated in another way by the Jacobin piece and indirectly, so are the Green flunkies. In Taiwan, it's the plutocrat capitalists who want closer ties with China. That would be people like Taiwanese native, but now based in Hong Kong, Joe Tsai, owner of the Brooklyn Nets.

Jacobin also refutes both Shea and the Zeese-Flowers duo specifically on twosiderism.

Going forward, it will be crucial for the younger generation in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and elsewhere to move beyond the false dichotomy of China versus the United States — neither country’s ruling class has a material or ideological incentive to promote self-determination and democracy in the region.

Exactly. Jacobin notes on the Chinese side that Beijing has repeatedly broken post-1997 promises about Hong Kong. It's no more to be trusted than NED.

As for the state-capitalist running dog Shea?

He looks like a Humboldt State student, by age in his picture. Probably thinks he's discovered the eternal truth and is combining that with college-age rebelliousness. (And I'm familiar enough with Humboldt State and Eureka, and allegations about them.) I remember putting up hammer and sickle signs a couple of times when I was that age, just for the rebelliousness; I was in truth politically quite conservative then. Today? While I look to move beyond modern capitalism, I reject anything tainted with the pseudoscience of Marx, as noted above, let alone provably fallacious stupidity like this.

Youth is indeed often wasted on the young. It's wasted worse yet when other sites, like Wrong Kind of Green, rerun stuff people like him write.

Where have all the bugs gone?

Yes, Friday Night Lights two weeks ago was swarmed by moths and crickets. That was due to unseasonably warm and unstable weather, even for the end of late summer in North Texas. The weather wasn't normal, nor was seeing that many bugs.

More and more research over the past few years indicates that more and more insects are disappearing from our world, especially in developed areas.

Now, a lot of this research has at least mild "anecdote" problems. Even when bugs/square centimeter are being done on a particular patch of land, we don't always have a control vs. 10 years ago on that same patch of land, same time of year. Even if there are cases when we do that, it's tough to control for different weather (not climate, down wingnuts and more on that in a minute).

Some research doesn't even have that degree of control.

Nonetheless, many scientists and philosophers of science related to this accept that there is a moderate to large degree of truth behind this.

We still don't know why. I'll tackle that more, too

I'm first adding my purely anecdotal, longitudinal observations.

Like many other non-scientists who have noted this, I've seen fewer and fewer bugs on my windshield over the years. And, the rate of decline seems to be decreasing.

I have spent 13 of the past 21 years within 100 miles of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and another three years in North Central Texas, just a little bit out of that circle to the south.

It's bug area. Mild winter, warm spring and fall, warm to hot summer, fairly high humidity, lots of lakes, etc.

In the summer, in years and years past, during their namesake month, June bugs coated the windshields of night drivers, especially in rural parts of the area I describe. Moths did so throughout the summer months. Especially in later summer, grasshoppers and crickets might make a late additional late afternoon addition.

No more.

That critter at left was a friendly rider from a county road, then on to a farm road, then on a brief stretch of U.S. highway that I tried not to travel too fast, on my driver's window. (Background scuzz is old tinted window film with bits of separation, glue, etc.)

I don't think a grasshopper that big has hit my windshield, or either of my headlight shields, the whole summer.

I think, on memory, I've probably only had a few like that in the past four or five years. Moths are more an irritant than a real problem.

So why?

Is climate change on the heat side screwing up insect gestation stages?

Is climate change on the heavier and more intermittent rain screwing up insect egg laying?

Are farm insecticides causing too much damage beyond farm and field?

Some combination of all of the above?

Other factors?

Yes, possibly other factors. The Guardian suggests light pollution is one.

Other factors  plus one or more of the original three listed possible causes?

Will we soon be aping Pete Seeger?

Where have all the insects gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the insects gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the insects gone?
Farms have killed them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

WE have killed them every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

==

Not for a long time, perhaps. Science notes we've killed an estimated 3 billion birds in North America since the 1970s, although those numbers and what they mean may have been both overstated and massaged.

Black Sox at 100 part 3 — could it happen today, whether in baseball or another major sport?

Or sometimes far worse than a crapshoot, so to speak.

ESPN reminds us that (even as the NFL celebrates the centennial of its founding), baseball is at the centennial of the 1919 Black Sox scandal. It mentions that to raise the question: "Could it happen today"?

It adds that this is the 30th anniversary of Bart Giamatti booting Pete Rose for betting on games. (I still think there's some chance he bet AGAINST his own Reds, and that John Dowd may have asked him that. Or Dowd may have feared the answer, and deliberately did NOT ask.)

It also adds that, after fighting gambling outside of Vegas, MLB has made Mandalay Bay among its new gaming partners — a place where Pete Rose autographs swag.

Of course Vegas ain't heavy, even if Sin City is corny: 

And, per Kevin Costner, one person is identified with that more than anybody, even though not the ringleader and totally opposite Rose in personality. I'm talking Shoeless Joe Jackson, of course.

Beyond whether Shoeless Joe Jackson helped do it or not, there's the question of whether MLB isn't hypocritical, on him, or on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, as I've discussed before. Paul Hornung and Alex Karras are in Canton despite admitting gambling on football. Art Schlichter also admitted betting on games. None of the three ever bet on their own team, though. (Of course, no set of NFL players has ever been caught allegedly throwing a title game. And, given that football is a one-game showdown, AND given that there's massive amounts of prop bets on today's Super Bowl, I would think that's hellaciously tempting.) 

(Things like Gaylord Perry's spitters or Don Sutton's nail files aren't in the same class.)

So, why do we still "pick on" Shoeless Joe, and even more than Rose?

Jackson was proven innocent in a court of law, as his own granddaughter notes at the top link. 

The Black Sox in general, because this was so early in organized sport, and organized sport was trying to become more professional after the Great War, were a target. Plus, baseball was the National Pastime. City College of New York point-shaving scandals hurt that game somewhat, but everybody moved on.

That said, as John Thorn notes, many myths still abound about the Black Sox. That includes that they were underpaid (actually, the highest paid team in baseball), that they were rubes taken for a ride by gambling sharks (not true in general, and note Cobb and Speaker above, representing just a tip of alleged game-fixing at this time), and that Shoeless Joe was just a country bumpkin (actually, he had good post-baseball business career).

On PBS, Jacob Pomrenke, in addition to refuting more myths, wonders if other pre-1919 WS were fixed. I addressed that in Part 2.) Pomremke, a member of SABR, chairs a committee it has just over the Black Sox. Here's a list of all his research.

As for Jackson? Like his granddaughter, as I note in this long piece, I don't think he did it. But, I'm not sure, either, per Thorn and Pomrenke. Per my Part 1, I'm leaning more toward him being guilty again, and explain there how he could have had such a great World Series and still be guilty. 

And, because of that, Jackson should be made eligible for the Hall, and then voted into Cooperstown, if there's at least the strong likelihood he didn't do it.

He's got the cred.

Despite his career being forcibly ended at age 32, he's 13 in JAWS among right fielders, as I note at that link. Give him four more years, and he's at around 90 WAR. Around 70 on JAWS. Right next to Al Kaline and Roberto Clemente, at a minimum.

As for Rose? Nope.

I disagree with the Bob Ryans, per the Red Satan link, who want to put him in. MLB had express prohibitions then, as it does today, which it didn't at Jackson's time. And, despite MLB looking hypocritical, other pro sports ban their players from wagering on their own sports, let alone their own teams as well. The added issue was that Rose was not just a player, but a player-manager, and could monkey with daily lineups to the longer-term detriment of his team.

Now, the $64,000 question. Or two, actually.

One? Could it happen?

Two? Would it happen?

No. 1? Yes. Despite computers seeing sudden shifts in betting lines, could you actually find enough to stop a game before it started? Very likely not. There's examples in pro tennis, of suspicions being confirmed quickly afterward, but not during a match.

Could you vacate a title? Well, cheating to win, maybe. But, cheating to lose? No, the Cincinnati Reds are still listed as 1919 World Series winners.

No. 2? Possible. But likely? Contra a Boston cop quoted in that piece, no.

First, when you can make an extra $100-150K or whatever for winning the World Series rather than losing it, plus, even as a bit player, maybe a bit more in commercial endorsements, you'd have to be offered a lot of money to throw it. And, as with the original Black Sox, you'd have to have several players involved. And, unlike a tennis match, something probably would leak out before it got done.

That said, although the NBA has pretended otherwise, who's to say that Tim Donaghy wasn't shading calls in playoff games as well as the regular season? Donaghy himself claimed the league got refs to fix the highly controversial Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings Western Conference finals.

If you don't recall, the Lakers shot 21-27 at the free-throw line in the fourth quarter versus 7-9 for the Kings. Per the link above, Mike Bibby was called for a defensive foul on an offensive foul by Kobe Bryant, while both Vlade Divac and Scott Pollard fouled out, being called for defensive fouls every time the Diesel dropped his shoulder.

On the other hand, just like the 1985 St. Louis Cardinals after Don Denkinger's blown call (and why has nobody alleged a fix there?!?!?!!?) the Lakers and Kings had a Game 7. Had Chris Webber not reverted to the same deer in the headlights fear of failure that led him to call a non-existent timeout as a Michigan Wolverine, maybe the Kings win anyway.

And, it's not just players, or managers, or referees. Think of Deflategate and Tom Brady's footballs. Or the person sneaking into the Giants locker room to steal Eli Manning's helmet. There's people making a lot less money than refs, let alone players or coaches, who could be "turned" and who could have the ability to do something.

Or hangers-on of various sorts. And not just cheating to lose, but simply using inside information.

Like, say, Rich Paul, LeBron James' agent and more. Let's say it's Game 7, Western Conference finals, against Kawhi Leonard and the Clips. Bron sprained his ankle in Game 6, and for the public, and even within the team, everybody is saying, "he's good." But, Rich knows differently. And bets on it. Both directly and through others. Or Kawhi's Uncle Dennis.

Is that cheating? No, not by NBA standards. At that moment.

What if Bron or the Klaw find out? Then, IMO, if they don't report, it is cheating.

College hoops, with the betting money of March Madness and the one-and-done nature of the tournament, would be more rife to fixing, especially since college athletes aren't paid. Note Hot Rod Williams and his regular season college point shaving and way back in the 1980s. Or further back, Kentucky All-Americans Alex Groza and Ralph Beard, eventually discovered after they were in the NBA.

===

In summary, some thoughts.

First, players are paid way too much to be gotten to throw a game. And, pretty much, managers.

So, it's going to be officials, team support personnel or player hangers-on that are going to try to use poor officiating, in the first case, access to equipment in the second, or manipulation of information, in the third, to cheat in various ways — though the third may not involve throwing games.

Second, by its nature, basketball is probably the easiest of the three sports to fix. Football, even though it has more players, with its quarterback focus, comes second, but it's behind basketball because you can't risk being too obvious. Baseball is third. Also, basketball probably makes it the easiest sport for fixing by ref.

Third, college sports, especially college hoops, offers more temptation than pro sports. There, players come into the picture.

Fourth, replacing officials with robots and cams (most feasible in baseball) won't help. The robot programmers can be bribed or the programs can be hacked.

Texas Progressives update sports cheating and sports sellouts

You say Boomer, I say Sooner, as we observe Oklahoma beating Texas in the Red River Shootout.

This corner of Texas Progressives accepts that it's "wait until next year time" for the St. Louis Cardinals while wondering if the Houston Astros can get back to the big dance.

And, with that, we kick off the blog with a mix of sports and history.


Black Sox centennial

With the Fall Classic just days away Socratic Gadfly takes note of the centennial of the Chicago Black Sox scandal and asks, did Shoeless Joe Jackson do it along with the others? This is part 1 of a 3-part series. Part 2 will look at whether other World Series were thrown and Part 3 will examine the possibility of this happening today.


Texas politics

Former Congresscritter Pete Sessions (R-ATT) has bigger problems than Bill Flores calling him out for carpetbagging into his district. He's reportedly "Congressman 1" in a list of unindicted co-conspirators of Rudy Giuliani's two pals indicted for Ukraine-related shenanigans. The Dallas Observer also weighs in.

Pat Fallon has decided NOT to primary John Cornyn. (No word yet on the possibility of him running for Mac Thornberry's House seat.)

Texas Signal is hosting a Democratic Senate candidates forum in Houston Oct. 23.


Texana

In "Death in Solitary," the Observer takes the suicide of an inmate in solitary confinement as a lens for an array of ongoing problems in the Texas prison system.

Texas' "fix" for low-performing public schools might be as bad as the problems it wants to address.

Désiré Nizigiyamana reminds us all that refugees are a Texas success story.


Dallas

Michael Barajas comments on the aftermath of the Amber Guyger trial showing why the Dallas City Council rightly increased oversight of the Dallas PD.

Related? McKinney City Councilman La'Shadion Shemwell is bringing his Black Lives Matter POV to Dallas City Hall.


Fort Worth

Atatiana Jefferson, 18, was killed by Fort Worth cop, now ex-cop, Aaron Dean. Per the first link, she is the SIXTH person Fort Worth cops have fatally shot SINCE JUNE. Per the second link, sounds like Cowtown hired as big of a loser cop as Big D with Amber Guyger. FWPD interim chief Ed Kraus said he was getting close to firing Dean over non-use of de-escalation tools and unprofessional conduct. He didn't address the other five killings nor if he thinks he's running a shithole department.

Cowtown's firing of former chief Joel Fitzgerald less than six months ago, and his lawsuit for reinstatement, all appear related to the possibility of Corrupt Cops in Cowtown.


Houston

The Trib casts a critical eye on North Houston freeway widening plans.

Off the Kuff reviewed the 30 day finance reports from the two Houston-area legislative special elections.

John Coby bemoans unserious candidates.

Kim Ogg asks cops to support her last-ditcher attempt to fight the bail bond settlement. She appears to be doing her damndest to make up for decades of lost groups and pass John Whitmire as the biggest ConservaDem in Houston.

National

Brains offers up an Equality Town Hall 2020 update. That includes black trans people being winners (sort of) at the event. (Unfortunately, CNN repeats the likely legend that Matthew Shepard was killed as a hate crime. No, it's much more likely that his was a drug-related killing. As I say there in reviewing "The Book of Matt," it's sad Shepard has been glommed onto as an LGBTQ poster boy when that's not why he was killed. It's sadder yet that his drug dealing and other issues have NOT led him to be noted as a poster child for insidious effects of child sexual abuse. That may be in part because he's gay and national child abuse groups are afraid of opening the "it made me gay" can of worms.)

A Texas reproductive rights advocate discusses all that she sees behind the Supreme Court decision to (seemingly unnecessarily) review Louisiana's harsh abortion law.

Like Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke is now saying God will call him home, or something like that, if he doesn't get Moar Money to run for prez.

LeBron now joins James Harden and other NBA players, along with coach Steve Kerr, in being capitalist sellouts to China.

Therese Odell wraps up an exciting week of impeachment blogging.

This:

🔥Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York-14), 🔥Rashida Tlaib (Michigan-13), and 🔥Ilhan Omar (Minnesota-3) endorse
BERNIE SANDERS for President of the United States of America.⚡️ pic.twitter.com/zs5cdS90Hi

— Our Revolution CCC (@ORContraCosta) October 16, 2019

Happened after Tuesday's Dem debate. Some in the MSM, like CNN's John King, are already trying to explain this away. I'm asking where Ayanna Pressley is, and if this isn't a reflection of what some people said a year ago, that she might be less pergressuve than the Congresscritter she primaried out, John Capuano.

I'll be curious who she DOES endorse — and when. The "who" will be very interesting, especially if it's neither Sanders nor Massachusetts' Warren. The "when" will be interesting if it comes off as a bandwagon type endorsement.

Kaep is going to the bank and laughing all the way, not the Saints, Steelers or any other NFL team

After it was revealed a few weeks ago that Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger needed Tommy John surgery and would miss all of this year, a number of folks had an alternative idea for them, instead of relying on untested Mason Rudolph.

And that was to sign Colin Kaepernick, two-plus years of rust, overrated reputation as a quarterback, and all.

Look, I get it. Kaep is a fun tool to beat both the No Fun League and mouth-breathing, Trump Train riding Neanderthals over the head. But, he's no replacement for Big Ben.

And, he's even less a replacement for Saints quarterback Drew Brees for a 6-8 week vacancy; that's just stupid.

First, Kaep is not in game shape. Minimum of two weeks on the purely physical side, no matter how much he's been working out, and more than that on game mindset and learning the offense side.

Beyond that, Teddy Bridgewater is. even if a less than decent quarterback in his short-term replacement of Brees so far, a  non-disaster QB who is in both game and game mindset shape right now.

I mean, the Colts had time before the season started, when Andrew Luck announced his retirement, to sign Kaep. They went with backup Jacoby Brissett.

All of this assumes that Kaep actually wants back in the NFL. Despite the words of his lawyer-agent, Mark Geragos, last seen being indicted for some of Michael Avenatti's shakedowns of Nike — and hold on to that thought — there's no indication he actually wants to play NFL football.

Look, dude had been out of football two years this spring, and then, when low-budget Alliance of American Football was interested, he asked for $20 million. Dude, entire arena league TEAMS didn't have $20M in guaranteed roster money. The starting salary is $80K. An average of $150K times 40 players is $6 million.

So, you're a poseur. Let's be honest.

And, I think Kaep knows this; this wasn't a good-faith ask. It's good posturing if nothing else. Make a semi-outlandish demand and watch nobody give you an offer. I mean, Nike's $5M a year without NFL-sized medical bills is not shabby.

Or, if we compare it to his earnings before his contract restructure, it's $5M (my guess) vs $7M.

And, no, that's not outrageous as a guess as to what Kaepernick makes from Nike. Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports, who knows a little about the pro world, says "millions ... plus royalties." LeBron's lifetime deal with Nike is reportedly a cool $1 billion. Odell Beckham Jr. is raking $5M a year from Nike. And Kyle Kuzma, with less star power than OBJ, just signed a deal with Puma, a company with less star power than Nike, for 5 years and at least $20 million, plus incentives.

And Kaep's "Dream Crazy" ad from a year ago just won an Emmy. That will goose the royalties, and it already did; sales surged in the days after the ad.

Nike's stock surged this summer; surged $3 billion after Kaep called out its Betsy Ross shoe.

So why would he honestly want to come back?

Kaep has two years of not taking shots from defensive ends and linebackers. He might enjoy staying pain-free.

Or, he might say that, rather than being rusty, he's fresh. With the league doubling down again on mobile QBs like Lamar Jackson, he should be hired.

So, how would you rank him against current QBs?

My take, based on a mix of:
1. Overall QB physical skills
2. Overall QB athleticism
3. Overall QB decision making and leadership

AND ... based on where Kaep was at when he was last active —

I rank clearly ahead of him
1. Tom Brady
2. Aaron Rodgers
3. Big Ben
4. Russell Wilson
5. Patrick Mahomes
6. Brees
7. Cam Newton

Four of those eight are fairly long in the tooth, of course. A couple are very long.

BUT.

And a big fat BUT.

Kaep's tryout — two punkings passing in the night

Both the NFL and Kaepernick's representation, arguably, had reasons to be wary of each other at the tryout that wasn't.  Overall, the NFL's actions look worse by a 2-1 margin, on my quick take to this excellent long read from ESPN by Howard Bryant.

First, I didn't know that, while still with the Niners, Kaep opted out of an NFLPA league-player-wide licensing deal. That's one reason the players' union hasn't been hotly in his corner over the past two-plus years.

So, that's the lead-up to the event.

The event itself? As Bryant notes, without the face of Goodell himself on it, it looked sucky. It looked like Goodell was trying to have his cake and eat it, too. That's even more true when the Shield's office wouldn't tell Kaep what teams were interested and then, after promising him not to leak any news to teams, leaked to the media. It's triply true when no "name" individual teams — or "name" owners Jethro Jerry Jones and Orchids of BDS Bob Kraft — would publicly sign off.

At the same time, some of Kaep's mistrust went too far. Bryant notes that the league offered to let him sit in on video editing, and with the Fritz Pollard Alliance in the room. But Kaep still wanted to film his own, and to livestream. That, in turn, was facilitated by his desire to throw to his own receivers. Understandable, as he was still rusty. But, at the same time, playing soft-toss with hand-picked homies and with no pass rush isn't that much of a test.

The NFL's request for a waiver, team Kaep's desire to modify it, the modification going slowly? That's on both sides.

The NFL fumbling the aftermath is all on it.

Kaep still speaking only through his team, even on this story and with an insightful reporter like Bryant? That's all on Kaep.

And, as far as future barriers? There was some talk of Kaep doing something similar at next year's combine, first issued by Kaep's agent, Jeff Nalley. He says he doesn't want to upstage collegians.

Is it that, or he doesn't want to put himself in a tryout he can't totally control? As for the winter meetings? Owners and GMs are there to set rules for next year and decide on free agency and trade moves in light of their cap situation. Not to evaluate anybody. Kaep surely knows that too.

Is he overpricing himself? Or is it part of the marketing?

For Kaep to generate full bang for the Nike buck, especially with the lawsuit settlement this spring, he has to stay in the limelight, including the NFL rejection limelight.

Actually competing for a job without $20 million guaranteed would have limelight at first, but then, with actual rust, questionable reads of coverage patterns, and flinching in the face of a blitz or three, the reality gets exposed to everybody but the Kool-Aid drinkers.

So, Kaep "overprices" himself to make sure no NFL team makes him an offer.

And, as a result, he remains "rejected."

He gets help with that by ... let's go there ... NFL house Negro Jay-Z calling him out. Lather.Rinse.Repeat.

But that $20M ain't happening in the real world.

So, that's part 1.

Kaepernick has been, beyond his Black Lives Matter activism, a nice sledgehammer to beat over the head of Roger Goodell, more curmudgeonly members of the NFL ownership club and MAGA hat wearing fans. But, is he "all that" as a QB? Well, maybe he never was. Better than Joe Flacco but behind DangeRuss. About midway between the two, in fact.

Let's also not forget that Kaep agreed to a contract restructuring and bet on himself as a player, outside of #TakeAKnee. That gives a heads-up to The Undefeated's Bomani Jones, talking about Kaep's sacrifices.

Didn't the Niners actually fire him?

Nope. Now, they would have cut him, had he not agreed to that contract restructuring. And, they would have been smart to do so! 

He had had three straight years of decline after 2012. By 2015, he was average at best as a passer in today's NFL. Completion percentage under 60 percent. Less than 7 yards per attempt. Quarterback rating under 80.

He also missed half of 2015 due to injuries. That's the other reason the Niners wanted him to renegotiate. They wanted to reduce their injury money exposure.

BUT?

His contract didn't end in 2016. He had a player option for 2017, and he opted out. In case you wonder, he was the 17th-best quarterback in the league, by ranking (the regular one, not ESPN's, as I refuse to use their special rankings in all sports). Oh, the year before, at his nadir? 31st.

So, no, the Niners didn't fire him, and the likes of Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk are liars.

Beyond that, claims about his original six-year deal? Largely inflated. Truth here.

As for why nobody signed him after 2016? There may have been some collusion, per the lawsuit. There may also have been Kaep WAY overpricing himself, just like him allegedly wanting $20 million to play indoor league football.

Related in a sense? Kaepernick was in talks for his SPAC, a special purpose acquisitions corporation, to acquire the Change Co. That fell through — just a month ago — because he didn't want to do in-person PR, for various reasons. More here. Before the deal fell through, it's interesting that investment funds for Serena Williams and Oprah Winfrey, among others, took a pass.

In other words?

Per old friend Idries Shah ... "there are more than two sides."

That's clear here. We don't know what financial discussions were held when Kaep worked out with teams in the past two years and many other things. And, in the spirit if not the letter of the non-disclosure agreement Kaep and his co-plaintiff Eric Reid accepted in their lawsuit against the NFL on his lawsuit, we may never know.

The last couple of years have made clear that Kaep still isn't a bad capitalist outside the NFL. And ... the question about whether people are good capitalists at that level remains open.

So, for the rest of this year, and into 2020, when a starting quarterback goes down, or several do at once, the "Sign Kaep" cries will pop back up.

And Kaep will make sure there's no realistic contract put in front of him. Works for both him and the 30 teams of the league both. Their GMs and owners don't have to worry about the slim chance of Kaep outshining a back-burner QB. Some fans even applaud them. Financial books stay closed. Nike stock and Kaep products shoot up. And ... the question about whether people are good capitalists at that level remains open.

So, any time a QB gets injured, the "Sign Kaep" outrage machine gins up, Nike's cash registers ring, so do Kaep's with his royalties money, and so do Mark Geragos' if he gets a cut of Kaep's royalties.

This may die out Jan. 20, 2021, or it may take longer, if you catch my drift.

There ARE other grifting options

It's clear that Tom Brady's TB12 quackery is reaching its point of no return, when Tommy Boy skips out on parts of repeated practice days and flat-out admits he's no spring chicken.

Think about the void to be filled. #TakeAKnee glucosamine plus secret sauce for arthritis. #TakeAKnee painkillers to go with.

And, I mean, Nike in general is dumb enough to be missing a huge boat on sports nutrition and supplements.

That's just off the top of my head.

Instead of Chanel No. 5, there's Kaep No. 7 cologne, isn't there?

Update: And, what about those Uyghurs?

Erm, Kaep, does social justice stop at home?

Bob Costas, who in 2019 saluted Kaep and called out NFL hypocrisy, much more recently turned the tables and called out Kaep. Costas, a straight shooter who called out gun violence on halftime of a Monday Night Football game, knows his stuff. As for the provenance of that second link? Even though the Costas interview was on CNN, Google didn't show me any non-wingnut media embedding the video and doing a text extraction — and that includes CNN!

Beto batting 0-2 on recent constitutional issues

Just a month after proposing an almost certainly unconstitutional mandatory buyback for guns, Robert Francis O'Rourke is at it again. And on the wrong side of the constitution again. (My take on the gunz issue was NOT based on the Second Amendment; click the link to see why I stand where I do.)

Removing tax-exempt status from churches that oppose gay marriage is surely a First Amendment violation. Now, there IS a good argument to be made that the First Amendment and tax law are being interpreted incorrectly and NO CHURCH should have any tax exemption, or other tax favors beyond what other nonprofits do, but that's an entirely different issue. (It's an argument that, as a secularist, I totally support.)

Give props to Beto for supporting Colin Kaepernick's #TakeAKnee in the middle of his Senate campaign against Booger Ted Cruz. That was a great First Amendment defense. But Bob on a Knob is on the wrong side here.

I find the mix of ardent idealism and blatant pandering to be fascinating, I'll admit.

On the mandatory gun buybacks, I'll put it at 75 percent idealism 25 percent pandering.

Especially given that the churches issue was at an LGBTQ town hall, I'll generously put Beto at only 75 percent pandering, 25 percent idealism, on that one. Generously.

The split the other way around on the gunz may be a bit generous, too. Especially since Eric Levitz has now called out Bob on these two issues and more.

Update: Bob on a Knob has now moved from pandering to lying on gunz when he claims he hasn't promoted confiscation. Yes you have, dude; a MANDATORY buyback is just that.

Black Sox at 100, part 2 — were they the first to throw a World Series?

In part 1 of my series (part 3 is coming) about the centennial of the 1919 Chicago Black Sox, I focus on the guilt, or not, of Shoeless Joe Jackson.

That said, I noted that there's allegations of Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker conspiring to fix games.

And they're not alone. Not by any means. But how un-alone are they?

On PBS, Jacob Pomrenke, in addition to refuting myths about Shoeless Joe in particular and the Black Sox' Eight Men Out in general, wonders if other World Series before 1919 were rigged. Pomremke, a member of SABR, chairs a committee it has just over the Black Sox. Here's a list of all his research.

Among other alleged fixers, he mentions Hal Chase. His career, per an old ESPN piece, unofficially was ended in ... wait for it, wait for it ...

1919! He also was booted later from the Pacific Coast League for trying to bribe an ump.

That said, Chase did not play on either of the two pre-1919 World Series that first stick out to me as possibly being thrown. (Note: I've changed my mind on the second, and looked at two more.)

The first? 1906, when the Chicago Cubs won a record 116 games with an unheard of 116-36 mark. The team of the famed, and overrated, double-play turning infield trio of Tinker to Evers to Chance — shortstop Joe Tinker, second baseman Johnny Evers and first baseman Frank Chance — lost in six games to ...

Crosstown rival Chicago White Sox! The Sox were known as the "Hitless Wonders" and deemed to have no chance in advance.

That said, that was arguably less a shock than the 1914 World Series, where first-time entrant Boston Braves not only beat, but swept, the heavily favored Philadelphia A's.

Here, unlike one of the myths about the Black Sox and Charles Comiskey that Pomrenke refutes, A's owner-manager Connie Mack, despite his team having the so-called "$100,000 infield," was known as being tight on salaries.

There's no smoking gun, but Mack himself allegedly "wondered." However, per great discussion at this baseball forum, there's plenty of myth the other way there. Mack only traded one top-level player after 1914. A couple of others jumped to the Federal League and that was that. As far as Mack being tight with money? Shibe Park was an undersized bandbox. Philly baseball would have been served by the Phillies turning over the Baker Bowl to the NFL Iggles only, and both Philly baseball teams sharing a new baseball stadium.

Further interesting? One of the Braves players was ... Johnny Evers!

That said, Wiki notes in an article on MLB scandals that some suspicions attached to the 1917 and 1918 affairs.

1918, which saw the Cubs lose to the Red Sox, has long drawn suspicions of a fix. This piece by BoSox blogger and book author Allan Wood has a lot of the details, including fingering Cubs pitcher Gene Packard. It notes that players faced tiny shared revenue from a condensed-season, attendance-shrunken World War I year, as far as temptation. It wasn't just overall numbers down with a shortened season. 1918 had the lowest per-game attendance in the 20th century. And they were being forced to share their shares with the other six teams of the two leagues' "upper divisions." (This later became the norm.) This piece also has 1919 games-throwing expert Eddie Cicotte claiming the Cubs had been paid to lose in 1918.

I don't know if he was given a formal ban at some point, but Packard also last pitched in ... 1919!

Shortstop Charlie Hollocher also drew suspicion from Hugh Fullerton, the first major sportswriter to smell a rat in 1919 as well. I'm less inclined to believe this one, though. Hollocher was a rookie in 1918, which would be another way of explaining his fielding mistakes. He knew nothing about AL players. That said, the fact that he was under suspicion shows where the game was at by this time. Also, even though the Cubbies had a better team WAR, the BoSox had won it all in 1915 and 1916. The fact that 1918 was believed to have been thrown by many sportswriters? Once again, shows you where baseball was at by this time.

The New York Times has more.

The year before? 1917? It's drawn somewhat less ink, but it is under a cloud of one player, at least. Heinie Zimmerman was eventually banned from MLB, at the same time as Chase, on general suspicion from the 1917 Series. Wiki notes he chased Eddie Collins across home plate in a botched rundown in the final game of the 1917 tilt. Per Wiki's piece on that Series, catcher Bill Rariden expected either pitcher Rube Benton or first baseman Walter Hoike to be backing him up in the rundown and neither did.

John McGraw tried to absolve Zimmerman, but reportedly, Zim probably could have caught Collins himself before he got to home.

That said, THIS plot comes full circle, too. McGraw reportedly believed that various members of his 1919 team conspired to throw the 1919 NL title to the Reds. He mentioned Chase by name. He also mentions pitcher Jean Dubuc, who was on the 1918 BoSox, and who reportedly heard details about the 1919 Black Sox fix. I find this one also hard to believe. The Giants ended nine games behind the Reds, who, per the 1919 NL season, simply appear to be the better team. Plus, throwing an entire season would be a big deal.

I had somewhat known some of this before. I hadn't really read about 1918 before, but I did know about 1914 vague suspicions, and more on 1917. But, I never thought to draw one connection.

And that's that the losing 1919 Black Sox had learned tips on how to throw games, and who to talk to to get paid for that, from the team they beat two years earlier, the Giants. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

And, there's the sidebar of for three straight years, one of the other of the two Chicago teams was being claimed to either be in on the fix, in 1918 and 1919, or benefiting from it, in 1917.

In addition, even though the 1918 Red Sox won, two of their pitchers, Bullet Joe Bush and Carl Mays, remained under suspicion, or came under suspicion in later years. Both made their next stop with the Bronx Bombers. Again according to Wood, Jake Ruppert allegedly told Fred Lieb that he thought both of them had thrown World Series games. Maybe. Or maybe the Colonel was a butt-hurt owner just like John McGraw was a butt-hurt manager. Or maybe a sportswriter was spinning a yarn. Both Bush and Mays stuck around until the late 1920s, something unlikely in the Landis era if they had any actual taint.

And, one other loop back around. Bullet Joe was on Mack's 1914 A's. But, he wasn't traded until after the 1917 season, though Mack did get money as well as players back in the multiplayer trade.

So, there you have it. Certainly in the 1910s, even if the Hitless Wonders of 1906 weren't gifted with a title, suspicions abounded and for good reason. By 1920, the Black Sox of 1919 looked to be a trend, and with America cleaning up under Prohibition, baseball needed to clean up, for PR.

My final take?
1919: Obviously thrown
1918: Possibly thrown
1917: Possibly thrown
1914: Probably not; claims based on overrating the A's and Mack myth
1906: Who knows, but interesting, isn't it?

Part 3 is next, Could it happen today? And not just baseball.