Colin Kaepernick: To Take a Knee or Not?

I've been thinking about the issue of NFL players taking a knee during the playing of the US national anthem. The trend was apparently started by Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers. Kaepernick is now unemployed and likely to remain so, possibly due to his protests, but contributing to his lack of work must be his playing record. But I digress as the latter point is not the issue I see.

No, what gets me is the position those who do not take a knee get left in. It's a protest that is divisive amongst the team. There is no I in team. Yes, first amendment right to free speech and all that, but wait, this is a professional sport run for profit and NFL rules require players to stand during the anthem. Can these players get away with it? This is the slippery slope argument.

Is this politicising sport? Yes it is, but you could argue simply playing the anthem is political. Why not do away with the anthem altogether and just play a rousing team song? Lame I know, but does the anthem have to be played at every game?

If we accept that doing away with playing of the anthem is not workable, and accept that rules are rules, then the only conclusion must be all players must stand. If they don't, they could have their pay docked and employment terminated for repeated incidents.

When I started thinking about this, you know, I thought I'd come to the conclusion that actions such as taking a knee are fine. But there was no way I could see to justify such protest as it is not in an appropriate forum. Why don't the players leave the stadium and conduct their protest outside? As well, consider all those who have sacrificed their lives for that same anthem and flag, what of them? Standing during the anthem acknowledges all previous sacrifice, it is not an affirmation of injustice now or in the future.

My advice, Donald Trump is right if at times inelegant. Stand during the playing of your national anthem, no matter where you are in the world.

OKC Clutching at Straws

What are the Oklahoma City Thunder thinking? They've just traded to acquire Carmelo Anthony from the New York Knickerbockers. Will this be the worst trade of the year, worse even than the Sacramento Kings giving up Demarcus Cousins. Maybe.

If we look at the Thunder, they've lost a lot of talent over the years and got back little in return. First they lost James Harden to the Houston Rockets. What a gain for the Rockets that was. Then with a depleted roster Kevin Durant does a runner to Golden State and finally picks up his title. Now the Thunder have only Russell Westbrook as a true class athlete, along with Paul George and Carmelo Anthony who are not anywhere near the Hardens and Durants of this world.

Enes Kanter must pinch himself when waking up in New York. How could such an average big man now be in the world's largest media market? He's certainly landed on his feet. And feel a little sorry for Steven Adams, stranded amongst ball hogs in Oklahoma City, where people compare their tractors and it's a long way to anywhere else. But not too sorry as he's a businessman and has never pulled on the black singlet for his country as an adult, so no doubt Adams will be checking his bank balance and not worrying too much about winning (and just so you know my thoughts on the subject, it's fine that Steven Adams is NZ's top athlete but he's not a great until he plays for his country. Until that happens he's just making up the numbers).

Lesson for NZ from German Federal Election 2017

New Zealand and Germany have the same type of electoral system - mixed member proportional. Both went to the polls over the weekend and both threw up interesting results. For New Zealand it was that the centre/left has spoken and shifted the balance of power. Only Labour grew their vote while all others withered or stood still.

In Germany, the far right has gained ground, actually winning seats this time round. Significantly, Angela Merkel will be Chancellor off a vote of less than 35% for her party. Get the idea Labour? That's right, Jacinda Ardern can be Prime Minister and there is precedent. All Labour need to do is do the deal with its left-of-centre travellers.

New Zealand General Election 2017

The results are in and I was both right and wrong. The public opinion polls were largely correct and the ruling National party got the single biggest share of the vote. But this is where it gets interesting as National are left like an orphan child, they have only one natural coalition partner, the lone ACT party person.

The first rule of politics - learn how to count. On the current result the centre-left has the overall majority. That is the combined total of Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First are the majority, not National and the one ACT party person.

Labour were successful in crushing the Maori party. They also gained ground in Wellington and Christchurch but not significant ground in Auckland. Turnout was down on three years ago and this dampened the result for Labour. Labour need a big turnout to swing a result their way.

This all sets up a few scenarios:

The first is that the 'moral authority' to form a government sits with Labour and its fellow left-of-centre travellers. They need to sit down and hammer out a deal. The structure of any deal could take a number of forms, one could be a Labour/NZ First minority government supported on confidence and supply by the Greens. The Greens could be given the Speaker role to compensate.

Alternatively NZ First or the Greens could prop up a fourth term National government. That would likely prove a very unpopular move, especially when you consider people voted for change. Either of these small parties should think very carefully before committing to helping National.

Far less likely but strategically worth mentioning is a grand coalition between National and Labour. Such a large bloc would have the effect of crushing the smaller parties by crowding the airwaves. But while making strategic sense it won't happen given the enmity between the two.

The next few days will be interesting. NZ First's leader Winston Peters is effectively kingmaker. Will he prop up a tired National or go for change and vigour? My pick is he knows National will only stab him in the back, he'll look ahead and do a deal with Labour.

[Edit to add: Turnout was actually up at 79.8% of all registered voters but the young are under-represented, only about 50% of those 18-24 who were eligible to vote bothered to vote; the young were also more likely to not even register]

New Zealand General Election 2017

Adding to my previous post, the overall result in the General Election may come down to whether South Auckland votes, or not. A lot is being made of the youth vote and their failure to register. But that has always been the case, nothing to see there. No, what will be decisive will be how South Auckland decide. I remember 2005 and the South Auckland vote coming in late for Labour, it got Helen Clark over the line. Up to then it was looking like the Don Brash led National party were going to be forming a government.

Since then John Key rose to lead National and he won the election in 2008. He managed to successfully straddle the middle ground. But he's no longer around and National now come across as entitled, ignorant, arrogant and Mommy-knows-best. My thinking is South Auckland will return to Labour in sufficient numbers to swing it for Labour. Labour may even get the largest share of the vote.

If I'm right, then that means the public opinion polls are very wrong.

Election: Prediction

I'm going to stick my neck out and predict a Labour landslide in this years general election in New Zealand. I went to vote early yesterday and the booths were busy. When people can't wait to vote and good weather leads up to the polling day it usually means Labour win. And there is a buzz, people are talking politics and this hasn't been the case for 20 or so years. National win when there is no debate and everyone is bored, the blue rinse set who are National's core support put their rents up and then sneak down to the polling booth in their Lexus or Audi and don't talk to anyone. Okay, so I'm being prejudiced, but there is truth in what I'm saying. Labour would have to stone cold drop the ball to lose from here.

Polls: National or Labour in Front?

There are conflicting poll results leading up to this years general election in New Zealand. TV1 has Labour in front while TV3 say National has extended its lead in front. They can't both be right. To find what the problem is I'd suggest looking at the sample sizes and methodology behind each poll. My guess is that TV1 is biased toward the large metropolitan areas while TV3 is biased toward the regions. Considering there are far more people living in cities, I'd pay more attention to the TV1 poll results.

Something else to think about, NZ First usually does better on election day. A myriad of reasons for this, including when asked people won't admit to supporting NZ First, or they're older people and always leave the answer-phone on and so can't be polled.

My money is still on a Labour/NZ First coalition. Labour on 40% plus NZ First's 9%, = 49% and with lost or wasted votes a majority in parliament. This MMP is a stupid system foisted on us by the Greens way back in the day, it's brilliant that same system is going to dump on them. Ha ha you bunch of naysayers.

Turn Sunlight into Liquid Fuel

This is good news, finally a technology that really turns things on its head. Please read the following link:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/bionic-leaf-turns-sunlight-into-liquid-fuel/