Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: What we must boycott in the Trump era

Almost everyone over the age of 40 must know of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, one of the greatest players in basketball history. I began following him when he was setting high school records in New York  (he was named Lew Alcindor then), and then at UCLA, and then in the NBA.  Since retiring he’s made a career of acting, activism, and writing, showing that being a great athlete is not incommensurate with being a penetrating thinker.

Abdul-Jabbar’s activism and thoughtfulness are on tap in his new article in the Washington Post, “How boycotts could help sway Trump.” The article isn’t just about boycotts, though: it’s a broad platform for the anti-Trump activism that many of us foresee in our future. The day Trump was elected, when I was in Hong Kong, I thought, “What are we going to do?” My first notion was that, since the Congress was Republican as well, we’d have to engage in mass political protest, perhaps along the lines of the civil disobedience we practiced in the Sixties. I’m older now, but I hope the fire is still there, and I could see hitting the streets if Trump (as I fear) will do something as outrageous as supporting the Vietnam War or ignoring the segregation we protested in my youth.

After laying out a persuasive case that we shouldn’t expect much good from the Trump administration—look at whom Trump chose for his Cabinet!—Abdul-Jabbar suggests five lines of action against the upcoming malfeasance, which I summarize along with my take.

  • Civil disobedience, such as blocking Trump advisor Stephen Bannon from entering the White House. (Confusingly, Abdul-Jabbar adds lobbying against the Muslim ban or for NASA to continue climate research, items that aren’t really civil disobedience.) This is what I envisioned, but stuff like blocking Bannon is too narrow, and doesn’t have the moral suasion to appeal to many people. I can see, for instance, action to prevent the deportation of immigrants, action that would rise to the level of civil disobedience. Would America be moved by this like it was against the fire hoses and dogs turned on civil-rights protestors? I doubt it, for the morality of integration is more clear-cut than that of fighting to allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. Still, you can’t persuade everyone, no matter what your cause.
  • Donate money to organizations like the ACLU and NAACP to fight Trump’s violation of civil liberties and civil rights. This sounds good to me.
  • Lobby the legislators who support policies of Trump that are unconstitutional. This also sounds good, but most of those legislators will be Republicans, unlikely to be scared by threats of being voted out of office.
  • Boycott Trump’s businesses. This seems to me an eminently workable tactic. If all opponents of Trump stopped patronizing his casinos and hotels, it would have a big effect, and Trump would notice. There’s nothing like a reduction in cash flow to scare a Republican.
  • Boycott right-wing sites like Breitbart by not patronizing its advertisers. Unless this is well organized, and those advertisers publicized, this won’t work. Besides, there are lots of right-wing websites like Breitbart, and that one, though on the odious extreme right-wing, deals with issues other than Trump; and should we really be trying to shut down a site we oppose? There are free speech issues.

It’s premature to ponder what we’ll have to do, as we don’t know what will happen, but it’s not premature to think about the possibilities. Of the above, I see civil disobedience, donations, letters to legislators and newspapers, and boycotting Trump’s businesses as the most effective tactics. But what can we do when Trump nominates, as he undoubtedly will, a horrible conservative for Scalia’s vacant Supreme Court post?

If you have other ideas, weigh in below.

h/t: Diane G.

118 Comments

  1. GBJames
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    sub

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

      sub

  2. squidmaster
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    I subscribe to newspapers. I have a print and digital subscription to the New York Times. I have online subscriptions to the Washington Post, Ha’aretz (great for middle eastern/Israeli news), Boston Globe and my local paper. I also subscribe to TalkingPointsMemo, a progressive news site. With one Trump supporter averring that there are ‘…no such things’ as facts anymore, it’s important to support the people who do the hard work to bring us the actual facts.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      I’ve recently started an online subscription to the Washington Post. It’s a good newspaper that’s likely to be at the forefront of Trump opposition. I’m seriously considering adding the New York Times.

      If we want good journalism (and we’re going to need it more than ever) we have to be prepared to pay for it.

      • Diane G.
        Posted December 2, 2016 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

        I subscribe to the NYT, WaPo, Wall Street Journal (gotta follow the other side) and, dare I mention it, the Grauniad. (And I probably spend more time here than at all the others combined!) There’s a lot to be said for traditional journalism; so far none of the above have descended to the click-bait catastrophes that are sites like HuffPo.

        I subscribe because I use an ad blocker, but I would anyway, as I think the product they offer is well worth it.

        • Posted December 3, 2016 at 7:35 am | Permalink

          I received a kindle as a Christmas gift last year along with a digital subscription to the Washington Post. As someone who worked in TV news for several years, the difference in the quality of reportage between a publication like WaPo and most of the news on TV is staggering. It’s vital that these papers continue to publish in the era of fake news.

          • Diane G.
            Posted December 3, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

            I do most of my news reading online, but have gotten the hard copy of the Sunday NYT since the early 70’s, when I lived in NY. (When there was not even an inkling of such a thing as a soft copy. 😉 ) Sometimes I just look at the utter thickness of, say, the first section; the number of in-depth articles on issues in places I’ve never even heard of; and think about how there are journalists out there on-site, interviewing and observing and putting it all together for us each week; it’s mind-blowing. Yet so many think all their efforts should be free.

            Editorials & columnists tend to get the most attention but there’s a remarkable amount of classic reportage still being done.

            (I do read the Times–and the other organs–with an eye out for their known biases, of course.)

    • somer
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:18 am | Permalink

      +1

  3. dougeast
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Flipping the Senate in 2018 is about our only hope to shorten this four-year, forthcoming nightmare. The numbers aren’t good. Dems have 33 seats up for election and only 8 for the Republicans. We’d need a near sweep…

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

      There are only 33 senate seats total subject to the 2018 midterms. (One-third of the 100-seat senate is subject to election every two years.) Of those 33 seats, 23 are held by Dems, 2 by independents who caucus with the Dems, and 8 by elephants. Those are tough numbers, but it’s not impossible to get to 51.

    • eric
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, I wouldn’t count on that. I think the mainstream prediction is that the Dems will lose ground in the Senate. However, I think the Dems can expect gains in the House, simply because mid-term elections are usually expected to produce gains for the underd*g.

      • murrd
        Posted December 3, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

        I don’t want your amusing asterisk to go unremarked! 😀

  4. Darren Garrison
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    One side says boycott advertisers that pull out from Breitbart, the other side says boycott advertisers that continue to use Breitbart. Pretty soon, we’ll have everybody boycotting everything.

    • eric
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

      Nah. For the most part, you’ll have everyone claiming boycott but not actually doing it. Sustained group action is much easier to threaten than it is to accomplish.

      • Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

        And I guess that before the week is over, many of us will find ourselves discussing and linking some report from Breitbart, because other media will have decided that we do not need to learn this or that uncomfortable fact :-).

      • Diane G.
        Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:16 am | Permalink

        In the mid-60’s the grape boycott brought productive attention to the plight of farm workers, and in the mid-80’s the tuna boycott resulted in measures that protected dolphins. It’s not impossible.

        But I’m also quite pessimistic; I had great hopes for Occupy Wall Street, but that fizzled away.

        I think a charismatic, publicity-drawing spokesperson is the best hope for such grassroots movements. But nowadays the left eats its own. Michael Moore might have been just the kind of demagogue on “our” side this past election–he’s been talking about the decline of manufacturing jobs and the gluttony of international corporations for years, making popular movies, stumping on campuses, writing books, and was zeroed in on the very angry white working class that went for Trump this year, but the elites in the left ignored him.

        We could also use an environmentalist star. This “consensus of scientists” trope doesn’t resonate at all with the masses.

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

      Breitbart is posting extremely nasty anti-advertising about Kellog’s after that company pulled its ads from Breitbart. Any corporation which might be considering advertising there should pay attention to how they might be treated at some future data.

  5. Ann German
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    I really like this and am posting it here with a recommendation that folks read it:https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/the-dark-rigidity-of-fundamentalist-rural-america-a-view-from-the-inside/

    • Rita
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

      I agree, that is a good article, Ann. Before we start too many actions, other that donations to ACLU and other organizations who fight legal battles, we have to ask whose opinion are we trying to change, and how effective is it really? Boycotts that would directly affect Trump and his large donors’ businesses seem like a good thing if we can pull it off. Civil disobedience? It depends on the specifics. It could help to call attention to specific issues that might otherwise go unnoticed by the general public.

    • Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      Great article. Thanks for posting the URL. For something similar, but more … personal, read Joe Bageant’s books.

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:24 am | Permalink

      Yes, great article, I meant to send that in myself.

    • Historian
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      This article is a long, devastating critique of white, Christian, rural America written by a person who grew up in that milieu. Of course, his observations are anecdotal, but barring contradictory evidence, I have no reason to doubt that they are largely correct. The essence of his argument is this:

      ——————

      “In deep-red white America, the white Christian God is king, figuratively and literally. Religious fundamentalism is what has shaped most of their belief systems. Systems built on a fundamentalist framework are not conducive to introspection, questioning, learning, change. When you have a belief system that is built on fundamentalism, it isn’t open to outside criticism, especially by anyone not a member of your tribe and in a position of power. The problem isn’t “coastal elites don’t understand rural Americans.” The problem is rural America doesn’t understand itself and will NEVER listen to anyone outside their bubble. It doesn’t matter how “understanding” you are, how well you listen, what language you use…if you are viewed as an outsider, your views are automatically discounted.”

      ———————

      The author is deeply pessimistic. He holds out little hope of change in the near future because of the hold of religion. We all know that secularism is on the rise in this country. It would seem that the group described will be the last to be affected by this trend, if ever at all.

      • rickflick
        Posted December 3, 2016 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

        This description fits my perceptions of many of the mid-westerners I grew up with. If they are as perverse as suggested here, the only way progressives can compete is to simply out-trump Trump. Some demagogic character who is willing to abandon principle for opportunity should run for president and once comfortably ensconced in the WH, rebuild the society around democracy, science, and reason.

        • Diane G.
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

          I think that would be a good gambit, although I also think simply another charismatic character, like Obama, would work as well. Too bad they’re so few and far between.

          • rickflick
            Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

            I used to hold out for the ideal that a leader of a republic should be competent but charisma should be ignored. I guess I was mislead.

            • Diane G.
              Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

              I don’t think that’s worked since the advent of television, more’s the pity.

  6. Ken Kukec
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Like a sky-hook from the low post, Kareem scores again.

    I have my doubts about their efficaciousness, but I don’t oppose advertiser boycotts on free-speech grounds. No one has a right to have their ideas supported by a particular sponsor. In this regard, note that Kellogg’s dropped its Breitbart advertising a couple days ago. Guess it didn’t want its cereal known as Special KKK.

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:35 am | Permalink

      You just keep topping yourself. 😀

      I live halfway between Kalamazoo & Battle Creek–remember, where you could send all your boxtops off for prizes, back in the day? Kellogg is huge here as were the number of Trump supporters; what a great message for the former to send. Gotta go buy some Raisin Bran.

      • Posted December 3, 2016 at 5:33 am | Permalink

        Yes! I’ll be buying Kellogg’s too. HRC won the popular vote, so that would help ameliorate any losses Kellogg’s might suffer.

        • Claudia Baker
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

          “Special KKK” – lol funny

          Be stocking up on the Rice Crispies here. And maybe sening Kellogg’s an approving e-mail.

          • Claudia Baker
            Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:22 am | Permalink

            ‘sending’

        • Diane G.
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

          Are you a fellow Michigander? 🙂

          Yes, HRC won the popular vote, but only thanks to Detroit, Ann Arbor, and a few other college towns. (Including Kalamazoo Co.) Somehow I don’t think a lot of Ann Arborites (Arborians? Arborists?) are the Kelloggs type.

          (Important to recognize their other brands, too. From Wikipedia: “The company’s brands include Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, Corn Flakes, Frosted Flakes, Rice Krispies, Special K, Cocoa Krispies, Keebler, Pringles, Pop-Tarts, Kashi, Cheez-It, Eggo, Nutri-Grain, Morningstar Farms, and many more. Kellogg’s stated purpose is “Nourishing families so they can flourish and thrive.”[3]”)

          • rickflick
            Posted December 3, 2016 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

            Maybe Arborialists?
            “Ann Arbor was founded in 1824, named for wives of the village’s founders and the stands of Bur Oak trees.”

            All the wives were Anns?

            • Diane G.
              Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

              lol!

        • Posted December 5, 2016 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

          ‘Fraid not… am in Canada, Diane. I like Kellogg’s raisin bran, and their plain cornflakes (all crushed up) make an awesome coating for fried chicken or pork chops.

          • Merilee
            Posted December 5, 2016 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

            Strangely, Canadian Kellogg’s Raisin Bran tastes different from the U.S. version. The American kind is sweeter. Same with Brisk ice tea.

            • Diane G.
              Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

              Hmmm. Now I’m curious. Think bringing a box of Raisin Bran across the border would raise any eyebrows?

              (I could just tell them I’m taking it back home to Kellogg…)

              I’ve noticed that the raisins in RB are sugared–might that be the difference?

            • rickflick
              Posted December 6, 2016 at 6:22 am | Permalink

              Maybe sugar levels in the cereal is part of a plot. US obesity level is 33.9% while Canada is only 23.1%. The US does not want to leave Canada too far behind. It wouldn’t look good.

          • Diane G.
            Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

            Oh, right, I’d forgotten about that! Yum!

  7. Gdaeus Stone
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    At every protest the protestors need to pick one subject to rally around. For me the biggest unanswered question about Trump is the very serious and believable allegation of child rape. It would be great if at his inauguration and every public event some large percentage of attendees held signs that say: “Child Raper?”

    This allegation cannot be swept under the rug by bullying the women involved.

    We need one rallying point that will get the attention of the media and our fellow citizens.

    • somer
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:14 am | Permalink

      The disgustingness of Trumps policies towards many groups is legion – torture, mass deportation, immigration block, vicious smears, appointing creeps to the high court, pandering to religious nutters, crazy ideas about vaccination and health, desire to squeeze out public schools in favour of private (religious) ones unaffordable by the poor, disregard of legal and political institutions, openly expressed admiration of dictators including Putin, appalling cabinet picks etc etc.

      Ditto his business, and personal history.
      Not only the actual rape allegations in court but attitudes to his family.

      “Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote that President-elect Donald Trump once asked, “Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?” — but the quote was quietly removed before the syndicated column was published Tuesday. Trump was reportedly referring to his daughter, Ivanka, who was 13 years old at the time.”

      from buzzfeed.com

      https://www.buzzfeed.com/tamerragriffin/trump-asked-if-its-wrong-to-be-attracted-to-his-daughter?utm_term=.fpM61zKAO#.rp14bw5VO

      • somer
        Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:18 am | Permalink

        I meant “selective immigration block” though if he did this for a swap of fewer Muslim immigrants and difference made up with some (vetted) refugees I think fair enough, bearing in mind immigrants in america tend to come skilled to fit into the economy and with a genuine desire to actually liberalise in some way.

  8. rudolphpaul
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Want to counter Trump? Then we need to re-elect Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren to the Senate in 2018, those races start next year. And, if you are not one of their constituents and can’t vote for them then we at least need to contribute money to their campaigns.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

      Pocahontas is my early favorite to head up the national ticket in 2020. (I think Warren should embrace that sobriquet. I’m hoping she can do for the Democratic party — and the nation — what her namesake did for John Smith and Jamestown.) 🙂

  9. Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    I think do not feel that there are serious free speech issues involved in boycotts of sites we disagree with and their advertisers. This is not the same as government or mobs shutting down a site. This is engaging the site in a form of discussion that they can actually hear.

    I fear that boycotting advertisers of these sites will be so diffuse (there are lots of advertisers) that it won’t be effective. But concentrating on a few major ones might work. And noisily patronizing advertisers who used to advertise there and stop would help a lot.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      I’ve done this quietly in the past. I just send a very polite email to the business concerned telling them I’m no longer using their product and explaining why. I also tell them I’ll be telling everyone I know what I’ve done and why I’ve done it.

      They dismiss people who rant at them, but take polite people more seriously ime.

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:39 am | Permalink

      “I think do not feel that there are serious free speech issues involved in boycotts of sites we disagree with and their advertisers.”

      Hell, no. They exercised their free speech rights by choosing to advertise where they did. Now we get to exercise ours.

    • E.A. Blair
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 2:45 am | Permalink

      One of the problems with using web advertising as a motive for boycott is that the ads are often placed by brokers rather than the advertisers themselves. This means that the advertisers have to be prompted into taking an active rather than passive role in deciding where their messages are placed.

  10. Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Roger, Murdock.

    • Alpha Neil
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      What’s your vector Victor?

  11. Historian
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    What Kareem proposes may help, but I fear not by very much. What we need is a grassroots effort on the local level, particularly in congressional and local legislative districts where Republicans control the seats. In addition to working with the local Democratic organizations, it will be necessary for people to talk to friends, neighbors, and family about what Trump and the Republicans are doing to the country. Of course, this needs to be done in a non-confrontational way. The Democrats have done a terrible job over the last eight years on the state level, resulting in Republican control of the vast majority of governorships and state legislatures. In addition, Democrats must do a better job in recruiting young candidates on all levels. If you look at Congress, the Democratic leadership is largely old.

    Gerrymandering and the way voters are concentrated in electoral districts have given Republicans an advantage that will take time and effort to break. But, if Trump isn’t a wakeup call, nothing is. Republicans and conservatives have learned that success requires years of unrelenting efforts. Democrats and liberals must do the same. Much valuable time has been lost. I only hope it is not too late to reverse things.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

      I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      Looks like the Dems will get some help from the courts in this regard. A three-judge panel for the federal district court in North Carolina recently ordered the state to redraw the salamander-looking districts it employed to deny black and brown constituents fair representation in the state legislature. Wouldn’t be surprised to see this and similar cases wind up before SCOTUS.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        Let me correct that: it’s the federal congressional districts that must be redrawn by the North Carolina state legislature.

      • Diane G.
        Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:45 am | Permalink

        Yeah, the good ol’ Supreme Court of Citizens United fame, soon to be augmented by Trump. I don’t see this as a slam dunk.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:13 am | Permalink

          I think SCOTUS’s Alabama redistricting case from two terms ago holds out some hope. (It’s the least the Supremes could do after gutting the Voting Rights Act!)

          Assuming Trump rams a new nominee onto the Court, we’ll be back to Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote in 5-4 decisions. Let’s hope the Notorious RBG takes good care of herself until the Orange One is out of the Oval Office.

          • Diane G.
            Posted December 3, 2016 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

            Thanks for the encouraging example.

            Yeah, it’s Trump’s second appointment (gawd forbid) that’s the real specter.

    • Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      Yes. I will soon be posting an essay on GOP economics on my FB page. The main point is: The GOP is screwing you, please pay attention. With the data.

  12. Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    sub

  13. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Mike the Mad Biologist: Lessons I Learned Working For A Narcissist And What That Means For Il Trumpe

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 12:55 am | Permalink

      Oh, my, that’s priceless!

      He’s easily manipulated. Having a fragile, approval-craving narcissist as president isn’t the end of the world. It just means that to get him to do the right thing, you have to pet him.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:23 am | Permalink

        James Fallows wrote something similar for The Atlantic recently about how the press should deal with Trump’s lying.

        • Diane G.
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

          Interesting. I hope the press listens to these authors.

  14. tubby
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    It might be effective to to use blockers to ensure Breitbart is blacklisted. Doing so will deny them click and impression generated profit from your visit. The problem is they probably can’t tell the boycott blocker from the person to blocks all ads.

    • ploubere
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

      If you mean ad blockers, that would only hurt Breitbart if you visited them regularly, and yes, since ad blockers are fairly popular, they wouldn’t know that it’s a protest.

  15. E.A. Blair
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    I remember when the Milwaukee Bucks signed a guy named Lew Alcindor.

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 1:00 am | Permalink

      I remember when he was at UCLA & I was at another PAC 8 school. The same era OJ Simpson was at USC. The seven other schools, in each sport respectively, were SOL. Loved to go to the games and watch them play, though.

      • E.A. Blair
        Posted December 3, 2016 at 2:49 am | Permalink

        His signing was a big thing in Milwaukee because the team had been in the cellar every year since it started up, and he was responsible for giving the city its first winning sports team since the Milwaukee Braves were in town.

        He also pissed a lot of people off because he considered Milwaukee a third-rate hellhole of a town and didn’t care who knew he felt that way. When he left to join the LA Lakers, it was a combination of a sense of loss and good riddance.

        • Diane G.
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 2:59 am | Permalink

          “His signing was a big thing in Milwaukee because the team had been in the cellar every year since it started up…”

          Not unlike the Trailblazers when they signed Bill Walton.

          “He also pissed a lot of people off because he considered Milwaukee a third-rate hellhole of a town..,”

          I’m sorry to hear that. I hope it was immaturity he’s since thought the better of. Having frequently paid attention to Kareem since said college days, he’s pretty much been a hero of mine.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:40 am | Permalink

            I think it was more a matter of Kareem having no bullshit in him.

            He played high-school ball in Manhattan for Power Memorial, then college in L.A. for the wizard of Westwood. After that, the charms of life in Laverne-&-Shirley land may have been lost on him, especially with white America giving him shit about his name change.

            (Don’t get me wrong; I like Milwaukee myself. But one of my main interests is beer-drinkin’.)

            • E.A. Blair
              Posted December 3, 2016 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

              He was down on the city from the very beginning (he started there in 1969), two years before he announced his name change (in May of 1971).

              One Milwaukee sports writer who thought he was witty described his signing with the Bucks as an “Alcindorella Story”.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted December 3, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

                Yeah, but he and Oscar could play the pick-and-roll.

              • Diane G.
                Posted December 3, 2016 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

                Thanks for the further elucidation, guys.

                Well, LeBron broke Cleveland’s heart, before he fixed it again.

              • Diane G.
                Posted December 3, 2016 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

                @ Ken

                Is it just me, or is basketball a lot less fun than it used to be (like before they got the linebackers…)?

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted December 4, 2016 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

                You talkin’ about the pro game, DG, or the college game, or both? There have been better times for both, but both have some interesting things going on now, too. These thing wax and wane, ebb and flow.

                But then, I’m kind of a throw back. I like sturdy picks and bounce passes, backdoor cuts and belly-to-belly man-to-man defense.

                Then again, I can get a kick out of watching a team that gets out and runs the fast break, too, a team that can go free-style, shake it and bake it.

  16. ploubere
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    The way that online advertising is done now, advertisers don’t even know what sites their ads end up on, which is why a lot of respectable companies such as Kellogs were on Breitbart. NPR had a story on this today.
    But when brought to their attention, they can block certain sites from getting their ads. So it’s important to email the company and tell them you object.

    • Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

      “So it’s important to email the company and tell them you object.”

      Excellent point, and you’re absolutely right about how these ads end up on certain sites. Great suggestion, and it’s something we can all do with very little effort, and considerable impact. In fact I just looked and it appears that Breitbart uses adsense, so contacting Google might be effective as well.

  17. eric
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Boycott Trump’s businesses. This seems to me an eminently workable tactic. If all opponents of Trump stopped patronizing his casinos and hotels, it would have a big effect, and Trump would notice.

    I’m skeptical. Trump has had, what, six bankruptcies? He doesn’t care if one of his business ventures stops making money after a while; he pulls all his profit from the initial set-up stage. If the venture actually makes money, great, but if not, he just passes the losses on to taxpayers. Which, frankly, will be doubly easy once he’s President. He can work with the GOP congress to bail out any sector he’s got losing investments in.

    I’m more of a fan of #s 2 and 3. #3, especially. Trump’s a short-attention-span egomaniac. IMO he doesn’t have the political or intellectual stamina to get into long, drawn-out negotiations with an obstreperous Congress over bill language. I guarantee some GOP congresscritters are going to stake out position to the right of where the administration wants to be (as hard as that is to imagine – but remember Cruz and the debt ceiling debate). If they cause his bills to stall, this will going to anger and upset Trump. Putting pressure (through calls, letters, etc.) on the more reasonable GOP and Democratic members of Congress to pass more mainstream bills might help sway Trump into a more mainstream compromise – IF he sees those factions as a pathway to passing his legislation quicker and with less modifications.

    But I think we’re forgetting what seems to be the most effective method of swaying Trump: flattery. The guy seems to agree with whomever complemented him last. So Democrat senators and house members, time to put your pride aside. Get in the room with him. Blow smoke. And tell him how passing your proposed bill will make him the Most Awesomely Respected Man On Earth For All Time. You don’t have to like doing it. You don’t have to believe it. Just blow smoke to get good laws passed. Because that seems to be the best way to get Trump to do stuff.

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 1:03 am | Permalink

      Do read the article Reginald Selkirk posted at comment 13 above!

  18. Posted December 2, 2016 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    I’m doing all those except for civil disobedience. (I have a family dependent on me.)

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

      If worse comes to worst, we’ll drop you a letter from Birmingham jail.

      • rickflick
        Posted December 2, 2016 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

        …though mail service could have been privatized by then and under control of nefarious agents with powers of ideological filtration.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

          There’s always twitter. But “Tweet from Birmingham Jail” doesn’t have quite the same gravitas, does it?

  19. Posted December 2, 2016 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    I think the greatest difficulty you guys face is that you have just *voted* to live in an oligarchy. Your position as opponents of a democratically elected, and already entirely corrupt government is unbelievably weak.

    All attempts to defeat Trump during two years of election campaigning failed disastrously. Trump has defined the territory for subsequent debate, and has been ceded the highest ground in that territory. And a significant proportion of the liberals who would normally be counted on to be on your side actually voted for Trump. You will need to win them over somehow, which will not be easy, given the failure to do so before the election, under *ideal* conditions.

    I doubt boycotts, though laudable, will have much effect. This win is a massive boon for trump and all his cronies. They will be too busy counting their newly found $$$ rolling in from undreamed of sources to even notice any boycotts. And Breitbart never aimed to get liberals anyway.

    Protests like #notmypresident are weak, easily ridiculed, in denial of reality, and identify no achievable goal. Don’t do that kind of thing.

    I would suggest exhaustively documenting and publicizing the inevitable corruption and cronyism, and avoiding aimless expressions of impotent rage or appeals to liberal ethics. Maybe even a few Trump supporters will realize what they have done if they see the way the Trump and his cronies bore their way into every organ of state and hollow it out from the inside.

    Otherwise, I don’t see anything much you guys can do at all, at least until enough people have realized the enormity of what the US just did to itself. I would suggest looking at what protesters in Russia, Ukraine or Hungary are doing and emulate them. And look at the methods used by those governments to keep their snouts in the trough and the public in check.

    …And regardless of what you might think of Frank Zappa’s music, tank a bit of his attitude!

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 1:15 am | Permalink

      “…you have just *voted* to live in an oligarchy.”

      I like to think it was “they” who did so. 😉

      And after all, Hillary really did win by more than 2 million votes, and it was only approximately 80,000 (latest tally I heard) votes in 3 key electoral states that tipped the balance to Trump. Could have easily been different had not so many thrown their votes away to 3rd party candidates.

      Knowing what we know now, do you think the best thing the Greens could have done to battle global warming would have been running around trying to get attention for Jill Stein, or working like maniacs to support Clinton and keep Donald Trump out of the White House?

      Gail Collin, NYT
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/opinion/count-those-votes-again.html

      • DiscoveredJoys
        Posted December 3, 2016 at 3:35 am | Permalink

        It’s probably my own exposure to the Guardian that makes me dismiss the ‘popular vote’ fallacy. Trump won under the existing rules; had Clinton won the Presidency but Trump had won the ‘popular vote’ then I don’t think you would acknowledge the argument.

        Which leads me on to ‘what to do about Trump’. The result must stand if democracy (for all its weirdness) is to be honoured. Protest against individual actions or laws can be democratic, but I think you need to ask yourself (for instance) ‘If Republican supporters were to protest *this* way against a Democratic action or law, would I think they had gone too far?’

        • Posted December 3, 2016 at 6:43 am | Permalink

          I agree. Especially as just about every news item I watched ended with some guy standing in front of a giant touch screen ranting about how voter distribution and the electoral college makes it impossible for Tr— to win. I heard no outcry from liberals about it being unfair then.

          • Diane G.
            Posted December 3, 2016 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

            Why would there be? And what would be our outcry? The EC is fucked? Well, duh. But it’s not something we can change in the middle of an election. That would seem to me to be a futile waste of time when there were more urgent actions that might have born fruit.

            There actually were plenty of progressives in the battleground states working their tails off to try to get their fellow liberals off their asses and into the polling booths. It’s just not as simple as it seems, especially in light of the Republican machinations to make voting by the underprivileged as difficult as possible. And there was plenty of outcry about that, not that it made bit of difference.

            • Posted December 3, 2016 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

              Sorry Diane, I should have been clearer that I was expressing frustration with media, who I think contributed to complacency with their spurious polls and analyses. The few US friends I have were all doing exactly what you have described – working their butts off, in a way that I have never done for a political cause, and they were initially Bernie supporters and had to swallow their bile to work for Hillary.

        • Diane G.
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

          “…had Clinton won the Presidency but Trump had won the ‘popular vote’ then I don’t think you would acknowledge the argument.”

          I like to think I would, though I wouldn’t be upset with the outcome, of course. As a fairly well-off person I find myself often voting against what most would consider my own best interests. My kids went to private schools, but I’m anti-voucher, for instance. I almost always vote the Dem party line on measures that strengthen our safety nets (and wish they would go farther!).

          But it’s been known forever that the electoral college always favors the smaller, rural states that tend to be conservative; that’s not whining, that’s fact.

          I think protesting the election when there still might be a hope for change (the fat lady–electoral college–has yet to sing) is perfectly fine and falls right into the US tradition of free speech. After all, the electoral college was created in the first place precisely to prevent people like Trump from reaching the presidency.

          It’s not like protesting now means supporting a coup!

      • Posted December 3, 2016 at 6:39 am | Permalink

        …Yes, I also prefer to think of it as “they”! But….

        I am more angry with 3rd party voters and liberals who voted for Tr***, than I am with those who were genuinely stupid and ignorant enough to think Tr*** was the better candidate.

        From that article you linked to:
        Stein: “It’s a healing and positive thing to examine the vote”

        WTF????

        And about Tr- and Clinton–

        “In my view they’re both lethal to the environment”

        …Not with a bang, but with a false equivalence.

        • Diane G.
          Posted December 3, 2016 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

          “…Not with a bang, but with a false equivalence.”

          Excellent.

  20. Kevin
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    For me this has never been about Trump. It’s about Science as the future of our civilization, and not religion. If Trump endorses any retrograde action that is not enlightened, then it deserves criticism either in social media or websites like WEIT.

    The best strategy is to work on one’s own life. Make this world better for yourself and others immediately around you. Educate people. Educate kids. Keep going. Support art. Support science. Support LGBT.

    I have a feeling Trump will continue to be immensely disliked or turn into a shadow of his ego unable to enlist the support of others as he expects.

  21. bluemaas
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    i) Post – this particular election result, and

    ii) remembering that of Mr Sam Harris’ recent tweet re, now, Mr Trump becoming .in reality. the first atheist elected as President of the United States, and

    iii) recalling 71 – year – old (DJT’s age … …, actually) Tanzanian Ms Gertrude Mongella’s y1995 statement to the World, “Women have always struggled with their men – folk for the abolition of slavery, the liberation of countries from colonialism, the dismantling of apartheid and the attainment of peace. ***It is now .The Turn of Men. to join Women in their struggle for EQUALITY,*** ”

    I am, now, a one – issue citizen: SCOTUS and how IT relates to me and mine. (“Mine” being: all of my peoples’ liberties and rights … … going forward.)

    As re civil disobedience and donations of time, efforts and $, IF ALL* of US*

    i) pandered however the smoke (referencing #17 and Mr eric’s description re faux flattery) blows re DJT and his ideas upon nominations to SCOTUS begin to shape up, and

    ii) turned out beginning immediately now (December y2016), held signs and calmly paced every single Saturday morning forth and back in or near the same safe – distance – away – from – clinic sidewalk spaces as pro – life rioters themselves do at abortion providing – venues (the FEW that there are left open !) … … particularly with ALL* of US* freethinking men* and women* from all corners of the electorate, and

    iii) immediately donated (our end – of – year write – offs, right now, re taxes) – openly, announcing such by way of letters to your local editors outing ourselves as supporters – a) of ALL birth control methods scientifically safe and effective and b) of Planned Parenthood and, internationally, of ANTI – cutting / – mutilating organizations and ones working to end girls made to be heinously maimed by obstetric fistulae or actually murdered as child – brides dying in forced child – birthings. Read that: as WHO and United Nations’ sub – organizations (.non. – religious ones) and Doctors Without Borders.
    This is a lot to do I know. But. If not now, then … … when ? cuz I am so done waiting … … since y1848, and Seneca Falls.

    So done.
    Blue

    • Kevin
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      Mr. Trump has, indeed, never prayed for anything except to get in the pants of the nearest supermodel.

      • bluemaas
        Posted December 2, 2016 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

        Seems to me in y2016, still, Mr Kevin, and certainly noted during the campaign as well as so far within this post election – result that the following statement is quite the truest – ever !

        “Accustom a people to believe that priests, or any other class of men, ‘can’ forgive sins; and … … you will have sins in abundance.” — quoth Mr Thomas Paine … … or so sayeth today’s interwebs !

        Blue

        • bluemaas
          Posted December 2, 2016 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

          Wondering … … because of recent “comparisons” made after this election: Has anyone seen the film, “Labyrinth of Lies ?” All the way through it ?

          I myself have had to quit its viewing twice now so far this week. Most recently right after ~43:00 through ~46:00, upon Herr Simon’s description re his twin babies, Fräuleins Klara and Ruth.

          ? Your take ?
          Blue

    • bluemaas
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink

      And as re point #iii): NOW is .the. time to become active as member and volunteer, especially for some of the very .hardest – working. attorneys whom I know, with the Freedom From Religion Foundation — of its hq in Madison.

      Such a $wee cost for such the .worthiest. of work for our liberties, our rights and our overall justices.

      Here (at the end of our calendar / post – election year): https://ffrf.org/get-involved/join-ffrf

      No time like the present.
      Blue

  22. David Jorling
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    I would suggest as many people as possible – 1 million would be nice – join the pipeline protest in North Dakota. I read somewhere that he owns stock in the pipeline company. Logistics would be a nightmare, however. Organize pickets of all of his buildings. Perhaps a sit in in Washington, DC at his new hotel there. If anyone knows of Trump holding in Oregon or Washington, let me know. I don’t think there are any.

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 1:25 am | Permalink

      “Logistics would be a nightmare, however.”

      It would be North Dakota…

  23. rickflick
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    “An astonishing 126,000 people have indicated they are going to attend the “Women’s March on Washington” the day after Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 Inauguration to protest the president-elect, but they’ve run into one very big problem: they don’t have a permit.”

    http://patch.com/district-columbia/washingtondc/massive-anti-trump-inauguration-day-protest-runs-huge-problem-report

    If Trump’s parks department won’t give them a permit, it is an opportunity to do some major civil disobedience. Who here is going?

    • Rita
      Posted December 2, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

      The article link you included points out that the problem is some other group also requested the same site/route, and the other group got their request in ahead of the Women’s March group. And, that they are working on a solution , so you may be premature to suggest an opportunity for civil disobedience here. I doubt the permit will be denied.

      • Taz
        Posted December 2, 2016 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

        Also, it’s currently Obama’s parks department.

        • rickflick
          Posted December 2, 2016 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

          “currently”

          • Taz
            Posted December 3, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

            Yes, currently, as in the point of time the permit application is being processed. There’s going to be plenty to blame Trump for without making shit up.

  24. zoolady
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    We’ve decided to buy ACLU memberships for our friends and family this holiday season or for birthdays. (No..we don’t ”do” Christmas but we sometimes buy small gifts, just for fun.) ACLU/Planned Parenthood/NARAL/NOW…lots of potential for doing what we need to do to legally slow these attempts at taking away rights.

  25. Posted December 2, 2016 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    I am hoping for an extreme Trump, not a moderate Trump. The voters need a rude awakening. Looks like I won’t be disappointed.

  26. Michael
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    My hope is that as more and more Americans realize the scope of the disaster facing this nation and this planet as a result of the November 8 election, they will take to the streets by the millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) in acts of protest and civil disobedience. This might, finally, awaken enough of our elected “representatives” to lift their noses from the troughs and actually do something to help ensure our survival.

    Meanwhile, we need to keep the pressure on as Kareem suggests, and work to elect state and national legislators who will try to blunt the potentially devastating impact of this madman and his pals.

    Resistance is required. Acquiescence is futile.

  27. Charles Minus
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Boycotts are powerful. However, many years of experience in the labor movement has taught activists that the boycott is a very difficult thing to pull off effectively. It needs massive preparation, publicity and organization. A poorly implemented boycott is worse than no boycott at all. Ref. Chick Fil a.

  28. Alpha Neil
    Posted December 2, 2016 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    I normally worry too much about exploiting every option to lower my tax bill but I think that’s going to change. I realize they will just print more money, but at least I can reduce how much I’ll be directly funding the upcoming horror show.

  29. Posted December 3, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is, near thirty years after his retirement, still the leading scorer in NBA history. He has 1,400 more career points scored than Karl Malone, 4,500 more than Kobe Bryant and slightly over 6,000 more than Michael Jordan, whom are second, third and fourth on the career scoring list respectively. Yet despite that and the fact that he was a 6 time NBA champion and the only player to ever be named to 19 All-Star teams, Kareem is typically not well remembered or considered among the great big men in NBA history. I think that his lack of recognition is due to his activism. During his era, it was uncommon for NBA stars to express controversial opinions, particularly on controversial subjects and they almost never got involved in politics. When asked why he wouldn’t publicly endorse a Democratic candidate, Michael Jordan once famously said, “because Republicans buy Nikes too.” But that’s changing of late and I hope that athletes like Colin Kaepernick, Carmelo Anthony and LeBron James, who’ve all made headlines of late for taking a stand on social/racial issues understand that they owe the big fella a debt of gratitude.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      Right on. ✊

    • Diane G.
      Posted December 3, 2016 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

      So true! And thanks for the stats. 🙂

  30. E Miller
    Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    There should be a list of advertisers on Breitbart, companies that made large contributions to the Trump campaign, etc. for easy reference when we make purchases. Economics is a good,, non-violent way to protest.

    • Posted December 3, 2016 at 10:27 am | Permalink

      “There should be a list of advertisers on Breitbart, companies that made large contributions to the Trump campaign, etc. for easy reference when we make purchases.”

      Excellent idea, I’d do my best to avoid those entities.

  31. Merilee
    Posted December 3, 2016 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    Late to the party


%d bloggers like this: