LeBron James was asked at his media day about Kyrie Irving leaving. I watched his few minute speech and something LeBron said again and again. I wondered if any of the media would take note of it today. I've noticed in the history of racial relations in the master/slave relationship, the master or the superior, calls a man, "boy." LeBron called Kyrie Irving "kid" or "the kid" again and again and again. This is the equivalent and even sounded like, "boy." "You come here, boy." Does Kyrie Irving like being called, "kid," by LeBron James? I don't think so. I think it's the greatest insult someone could receive. Maybe Kyrie won't say anything in public, but LeBron said it so, so many times, and so close together. It was no accident.
It wasn't all. LeBron was completely condescending toward Irving. LeBron was taking credit for Irving, as if all the imparting went one way alone. LeBron gave the kid this and that and more of this and that. All LeBron giving to the kid. And he called him kid 5-10 times. LeBron helped "the kid" as good as he could be -- the kid, the kid, the kid, the kid. Completely insulting. Remember this when you consider his thoughts about whatever subject.
In the same press conference, someone asked LeBron about Ohio voters, who voted in a strong majority for Trump. He said:
Well, I mean, that's a great question. At the end of the day, like I said, I don't think a lot of people was educated.This is a priceless statement from him, the grammatical error in the same sentence. "I don't think a lot of people was educated." LeBron is a smart basketball player, but he himself isn't educated. He is a super athlete and skilled player. As far as his view of the world, he isn't a well read, educated person.
Not to be missed as well, LeBron is saying that the people of Ohio are not educated. There are other ways of saying that. Kyrie is a kid. The people of Ohio isn't educated. Uh-huh. What's the media say about that? They aren't pouncing on this, because LeBron is a useful tool for them, like I talked about in the first article, or what Lenin called, a useful idiot. A pawn, so to speak. They treat him with great respect, but he's just a pawn to them, as seen in their lack of push-back. They are using him to further and blow into greater proportions their own bias.
As this week has progressed, I've noticed a talking point against any criticism of the kneeling, the protesting, is the division it causes. Stephen Curry says he's not going to the White House. Trump says, OK then, you're not invited. Many, including LeBron, but many more, have called Trump divisive. Anyone who disagrees is the one causing division. Trump can only capitulate. That's his only option. If he does, that's unity. If he doesn't, he's causing division.
If you have everyone standing for the national anthem, you have unity. The people dissenting are the dividers. Even the NFL has reversed this. Now the one who criticizes the dissent is the divider. There is definitely division, and even if it is a good kind of division, it's caused by the players kneeling. When you have a whole stadium standing, the ones kneeling are dividing. This is Division 101.
Coach Greg Popovich has insulted the President as much as someone could, and in the NBA, that's as easy as anything. Watch how that every time Popovich bad mouths the President, the media calls him an Air Force Academy graduate, as if Popovich is now representing the United States Air Force Academy. Smacking Trump panders to Popovich's team and any free agent out there.
Popovich has a female assistant, a lesbian, who has married same sex. Criticizing this would be division. Protesting this would be division. Kneeling against the police, that's unity. We should show unity with the protestors, even if we don't agree, is the position of unity, according to the genius of curmudgeon Greg Popovich. No, we don't agree, and we are divided, it's true.
Everyone knows causing division is bad. We're e pluribus unum, not e pluribus divisus. Anytime the left protests, that's unity. Anytime the right protests, that's division. The connotation of our society is that division is bad. It's not. Any protest is division. The majority of people in the United States want the players to stand for the national anthem. A poll was just taken and it is 60 to 31 and 9 with no comment. The 31 are the dissenters. It's a bigger number than I even think. I think the 31 believe it's hurting Trump. More than 60 percent of Americans would stand at the anthem. However, that's the way it works. Even on the Supreme Court, you have the majority, and then you have the dissent. The smaller number are the dividers.
It's the same in theology. You have an established truth. Then you have someone who corrupts it. That's a faction or a heresy. It's division. When the truth goes into the minority number, it's still the truth. However, division is a departure from the present situation. It might be a good division. People, however, in their simple mindedness, maybe because they wasn't educated, see the word division, and are now programmed to think it's bad.
Even if Trump is divisive, that doesn't mean it's bad, but we know that he isn't dividing. He's trying to keep those standing strong, and now those kneeling are attempting to stay strong by opposing Trump. Maybe they'll become the majority. I don't think so. I think they've reached the apex of their strength and it's downhill from here.