What Kavanaugh nomination tells us about American politicsv

Tuesday, 9 October 2018 on Alarabiya.net

The bitter partisan battle over Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court ended with a narrow Senate vote making him the latest Supreme Court justice.

His confirmation came despite sexual assault allegations and a display of anger during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The 50-48 vote came almost entirely along party line proving that partisanship trumps truth and justice.

The state of American politics is deplorable as did this process showed, but there is a structural issue that was ignored for the most part in the national debate over Kavanaugh’s nomination. that further exacerbated the negative effects of a poisonous political atmosphere.

The Judiciary

Americans are blind to the destructive structural problem plaguing the US judiciary. The long-held belief that judges are objective and independent is not entirely accurate and definitely not grounded in reality.

Judge Kavanagh’s confirmation process revealed the severity of judges fallibility, thus illuminating the fissures in the court system, and exposing him as a political ideologue. The contentious Senate hearings highlighted the accepted underlying tension between Republicans and Democrats.

Each party is interested in advancing their nominee through the process to guarantee a representative on the bench who agrees with their political doctrine. As a result, the partisan bickering co-opts the objectivity of the nominee turning him/her into a political tool. Kavanaugh’s hearing was an extreme example of how the political views of the nominee is the only qualification.

How can democracy work if the branch of government that is charged with striking a balance between the Executive and Legislative, and keeping them in check, is itself a tool advancing a political ideology?

Walid Jawad

The Supreme Court

The composition of the nine justices on the Supreme Court is critical to the character of the US. Legal decisions decided by the Supreme Court become the law of the land and affects how Americans live their lives.

Ruling on gun rights and abortions, segregation and voting rights are some of the issues impacting Americans immediately and profoundly. For decades the justices were evenly divided between liberals and conservatives with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting an often swing vote. Although the court strives to pass unanimous decisions 9-0, numerous consequential rulings end with a 5-4 split.

The critical nomination of Kavanaugh lies in the fact that he is replacing the swing vote of the retired Kennedy. Kavanaugh being a conservative will likely rule in favor of Republican supported positions.

Now that Kavanaugh has been voted in on Saturday the country will move toward conservatism for generations to come. Abortion rights, Roe v. Wade, being one of the most divisive issues the nation is anticipating a challenge to. Kavanaugh would be anticipated to seal its reversal denying women the right to choose.

ALSO READ: Beyond the pageantry of the UN general assembly

The repeated historical 5-4 decision split among the nine justices on the Supreme Court can be analyzed to show the complexity of their positions. The courts own scorecard shows the ruling of individual justices in different categories including First Amendment, Federalism, Economics and others.

But there is an overriding factor that explains the split strongly correlated with ideological affiliation. Because Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled the nominee to glean the depth of his commitment to conservative causes.

The contentious hearing process went beyond Kavanaugh’s ideological leaning to his character, fitness and whether he has the temperament required to sit on the bench after sexual accusations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

#MeToo extension

The confirmation process quickly turned into a he-said-she-said debate where the question observers were faced with was “who do I believe more, Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh?” This debate, ensuing testimony by both before the Senate committee, and the expanded FBI background check reframed the process to be an extension of the #MeToo movement.

For the record, I do believe Dr. Ford’s account and extend my admiration to her courage to recount her horrifying experience before the nation. True, there is a small possibility her memory mistook Kavanaugh for the perpetrator. There has not been corroborating accounts of the incident as recited by Dr. Ford.

For that small doubt, we are not justifying casting judgment on Kavanaugh as a sexual predator. But it was his words in defense of his reputation is what should have given Senators and supporters pause.

ALSO READ: The Arab wave in US Congress

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups”, he angrily lashed out directing his assault on the Democrats on the committee without offering proof.

Coverage of the nomination process myopically dwelled on details of the sexual allegation. As a result, people overlooked the zealot partisan entrenched position and how it informed people’s conclusions.

Watching the nomination process, one heard an “us vs. them” debate not along gender lines, but along political party affiliation. Most Republican, regardless of gender, showed different levels of support for Kavanaugh while Democrats stood by Dr. Ford.

The debate hardly included his political animosity toward the Democrats. Kavanaugh’s deeply rooted political conviction and ideological belief should have cost him the nomination. His tirade against the Democrats goes against the presumed allegiances to the law.

Lasting effects

In addition to the Supreme Court deciding how laws should be interpreted and applied they decide political outcomes. The Supreme Court has decided the presidency in Bush vs. Gore in their recount battle giving the White House to George W. Bush.

How can democracy work if the branch of government that is charged with striking a balance between the Executive and Legislative, and keeping them in check, is itself a tool advancing a political ideology?

The justices have the final say on matters of great consequences without Americans having the ability to change course as they are appointed for life. This is a far cry from the electorates ability to vote in nominees who are appealing to them, or vote out underperforming ones when reelections come around.

Americans are typically dissatisfied with their elected officials leading to a political seesaw from one election cycle to the next. The presidency consistently alternates between the Republicans and Democrats due to that dissatisfaction.

In the case of the Supreme Court, voters are not offered a process by which they can remove a justice for underperforming, or for lack of touch with the greater society. The immunity the justices enjoy combined with the power they hold often dramatically changes the whole of society; taxes, environment, business, etc.

Political affiliation

American voters are not as partisan as many like to believe. In fact, candidates craft their messages to include the greatest number of voters. When messaging has to be divisive, candidates are careful not to alienate significant voting blocks.

Therefore, there are more similarities between candidates’ platforms trying to be as close to the center as possible. The political label, Republican vs. Democrat, becoming the most important defining aspect of a race. Winning public office is the ultimate goal regardless of the strategy or tactics.

Senator Joe Manchin, the only Democrat who voted for Kavanaugh, betrayed his own announced position on Kavanaugh, “I have reservations about this vote given the serious accusations against Judge Kavanaugh and the temperament he displayed in the hearing.”

ALSO READ: John McCain: The last American statesman

Manchin is fighting a tough reelection race in West Virginia; a deep red state Trump won in a landslide over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections. Again, winning by any means necessary often means betraying personally held beliefs. In this case, even betraying future generations by voting for a candidate whom he thinks is not good for the nation. Politics is a dirty game.

Judges should be cut from a different cloth. After all, they decide on matters affecting our way of life. A new litmus test should be applied to judges nominated to the highest court of the land.

Any person who is or was politically affiliated with a political party shouldn’t be considered. Showing bias toward specific ideology with unrelenting zeal should be ground for automatic disqualification.

Beyond the pageantry of the UN general assembly

Wednesday, 3 October 2018 on Alarabiya.net

In September of every year, the Oscars of International Relations is held at the UN Headquarter in New York. The whos-who of global leaders wants to see and be seen by other heads of state. All converging here like clockwork.

This is where the 120 leaders who once played follow-the-leader as children get to realize their sandbox games as adults. Each standing tall on the shoulders of their nation’s status in the world propped by national achievements, economic status, and military arsenal.

Each of them projecting more than what their country is entitled to yet less than what they think they deserve. They are all stars in their own nations, but here they hope to rub elbows with the superstars. The powerful soak up the attention and relish their rockstar status amongst their peers.

The Game

In 1648, over long and arduous months in Westphalia, Europeans signed treaties to bring peace the religious wars of the day. It did, but more importantly, it was the moment of inception of the current international system.

The Peace of Westphalia advanced the concept of sovereignty, in essence putting in motion the system of sovereign nation-states, which Trump reminded us of mere days ago.

The Peace of Westphalia advanced the concept of sovereignty, in essence putting in motion the system of sovereign nation-states, which Trump reminded us of mere days ago

Walid Jawad

In his UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) address, the American president emphasized sovereignty as his guiding principle in rebuffing multinational collaborations “We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”

Nationalism under the justification of sovereignty has negative consequences, including marginalizing the role of the UN. Conversely, French president Francois Macron spoke to sovereignty saying, “I shall never stop upholding the principle of sovereignty ... even in the face of certain nationalism which we’re seeing today, brandishing sovereignty as a way of attacking others.” A diverging stance, one to harken back to the past while Macron recommits to forward movement.

ALSO READ: Pope, Russia and the US: A bipolar world order déjà vu

The failure of the treaties of Westphalia to keep the peace in Europe is not surprising. As war broke out within Europe during and after the Peace of Westphalia, so it did in the 20th century beyond the boundaries of the European continent. It is those two great wars that gave rise to the United Nations. The UN in its current form is the second iteration of the failed League of Nations – WWI gave us the League of Nations, and WWII rendered it obsolete.

Sovereign nation states entered into an agreement to create the UN for the higher purpose of avoiding the next all-out global war. Resolving conflicts and keeping the peace are enshrined in the UN charter. But, the UN doesn’t have an inherent enforceable authority other than what the members assign to it. Member states continue to predominantly operate outside the narrow limitations of the UN rendering it ineffective as a proactive measure to stave off destructive conflicts.

MADness

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the current reality holding back a WWIII. The potential outcome of such a war, should it happen, is the self-annihilation of the human race. For the moment, citizens of the world can breathe nervously in the shadows of that real threat, no thanks to the UN.

Yet, the UN offers a platform for nuclear nations to present their concerns on the global stage, limiting the power struggles within the margins of the UN and its Security Council (UNSC). The effectiveness of the busy work and ensuing resolutions is in question. UN resolutions don’t achieve peace nor does it resolves conflicts.

Many times, UN resolutions only create a pause in the conflict, this is in part due to the lack of enforcement capabilities within the UN structure. It is relying on the member states to send peacekeepers to the affected areas without any legal authority to use its full capabilities. As a result, conflicts are prolonged, and the status quo of unacceptable levels of violence and suffering persist.

ALSO READ: The Arab wave in US Congress

The list of intractable conflicts the UN is attempting to address through resolutions is long. We need not dig too far into the past to observe these effects. Good examples can be found in Iran, Syria, and Palestine to name a few relevant conflicts to the Middle East.

Conflict resolution is such a lofty goal for the UN to guarantee in this era of weapons of mass destruction. An era where death is a result of pushing buttons in virtual reality shielded from experiencing the agony of ending a life and the stench of death.

Courage is not a quality that comes with fighting today’s wars, on the contrary cowardice is the prerequisite. Being too afraid to face one’s enemy makes a preemptive strike a more appealing choice.

Seeing eye-to-eye

Initial face-to-face interactions between leaders have caused transformative outcomes. “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.” said former president George W. Bush in 2001 after meeting Russia’s Vladimir Putin. “We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country,” he concluded.

Trump said of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un “A worthy negotiator ... a very worthy, very smart negotiator. We had a terrific day and we learned a lot about each other and our country’s.” Lavishing accolades onto the young leader in a press conference after their Singapore summit last June. These are examples of the power of personal connection in altering powerful geopolitical dynamics, which brings us back to the pageantry of the UNGA.

The personalities of the leaders attending the annual UN spectacle play a much more decisive factor than meets the eye. Typical diplomatic channels between nations are advanced or hindered by the personal dynamics between the top decision makers. Gestures and demeanors, charm and charisma all come into play. Here is where the annual event offers a critical opportunity to leards.

ALSO READ: Apple’s $1 trillion valuation: The creation of a Syrian mind

Some leaders lean toward the theatrical. Not surprising as the gathering inherently feeds a sense of flair for the dramatic. Some leaders are inspired to make fashion statements and on occasions toss papers in protest. Leaders walk away at the end of the annual assembly with a simple judgment; can I trust this person?

Agreement doesn’t factor into this equation. Having trust is a prerequisite for any negotiation to take place particularly over serious disagreements. When trust is lacking, mediators and facilitators are charged with holding the parties honest during negotiations.

When trust is personal and organic between leaders, doubt and suspicion leading to fear and defensiveness are avoided. Perhaps the UN can advance its mission by creating more opportunities for world leaders to interact in an elite club-like atmosphere.

Conflict resolution stands a better chance when decision makers are present in a calm and relaxed atmosphere working through their nations’ conflicts trying to see eye-to-eye.

Pope, Russia and the US: A bipolar world order déjà vu

Wednesday, 26 September 2018

Pope Francis’ current pilgrimage to the Baltics states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia is a politically telling one. The three nations have been sounding the alarm of a sinister Russian plot to co-opt them into the sphere of Moscow’s influence.

The Pope’s visit to commemorate the 100-year anniversary of these countries’ independence brings to mind that for five of those 10 decades they were under Russian occupation, from the 1940s to the 90s. Pope Francis predecessor St. John Paul II paid a visit merely days after the last Russian troops withdrew from Lithuania in 1993 confirming the significance of the Baltics.

Pope Francis is directing global attention to the Baltics at a moment when Russia is posing a real threat to their sovereignty. All the while, the international community is theoretically concerned with Russia’s hegemonic expansionist strategy.

The US is reluctant to use its power to curb Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s designs to restore Russia’s glory and prestige as a global Superpower. This is an exceptionally opportune moment for Putin to take advantage of the US commitment to an isolationist strategy. The potential is glaringly clear, Russia has a chance to reshape the current world order.

Putin has been successful in exploiting opportunities to hasten US exit from Syria resulting in marginalizing the American role in the conflict, and challenging US influence in the Middle East in general

Walid Jawad

Global balance of power: The American retreat

The world is observing an unfolding power structure train wreck: an antagonistic American retreating from the world stage. The “America First” policy has translated in practice to an America alone reality.

Early last year in 2017, the US withdrew from the trans-Pacific trade deal, the Paris climate accord and the UN science, educational and cultural organization. The latest episode of this exclusionary policy, removing the US from international institutions, was in June: ceding its seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

ALSO READ: Channeling Muhammad Ali Clay, Kaepernick saga and Nike’s gamble

The US administration of Donald Trump has been methodical in advancing its exclusionary strategy by digging political trenches as it antagonizes friends and foes. Trump is finding points of divergence to create a rift with historically reliable European allies.

The US saga of withdrawing from the JCPAO redrew the lines pitting the US against the world. In fact its partners: the UK, France, and Germany ended up holding the bag of an unworkable nuclear agreement with Iran.

Southern neighbor

Simultaneously, the US is uncompromisingly alienating its southern neighbor, Mexico, and shocking its northern Canadian kin by renegotiates the mutually beneficial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The current trade war with China and other countries completes the picture; the US is committed to an isolationist track. The vacuum left behind is allowing Russia to expedite it’s already acted upon and alluded to expansionist goals.

Putin has been successful in exploiting opportunities to hasten US exit from Syrian resulting in marginalizing the American role in the conflict, and challenging US influence in the Middle East in general.

ALSO READ: The Arab wave in US Congress

Such gains has not distracted Putin from his priority to restore Russia’s hegemony over countries falling under its old sphere of influence. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, and Russian exploits in Georgia in 2008 whereby it is incrementally seizing more land ever since provide a blueprint for whats to come.

Abdicating global leadership is not a solely American issue. Numerous European countries have seen a rise in right-wing forces steeped in anti-immigration fear-based politics. The stalled Brexit negotiations with the EU prompted Theresa May to threaten this past Saturday to unilaterally exit the European Union furthering the UK’s own isolationist streak.

‘Mother Russia’

Putin is skillfully playing a weak hand and reaping the benefits of his calculated bold moves. Putin’s expressed his own Russia First early on in his presidency. He laments the demise of the Soviet Union expressing nostalgic remorse emanating from leaving millions of ethnic Russians beyond the borders of today’s Russian Federation.

Moreover, Putin felt slighted by the US as it never showed Russia the respect it was due as a former Superpower after the disillusionment of the Soviet Union.

“We are a free nation and our place in the modern world will be defined only by how successful and strong we are” Putin announced early on in his presidency continuing “the moment we display weakness or spinelessness, our losses will be immeasurably greater,” clearly framing his political philosophy.

ALSO READ: John McCain: The last American statesman

Russia’s battlefronts have been expanding to include territorial claims of 460,000 square miles of Arctic Ocean seabed, misinformation campaigns in western democracies, providing funding to European far-right and far-left fringe parties as well as extending political, economic, institutional and military ties with China.

On the military front, Russia is increasing the frequency of submarines spying in proximity to undersea cables, donating military equipment to the Ortega regime in Nicaragua, providing support and arms to separatists in eastern Ukraine, and the annexation of Crimea in addition to shoring up the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

A new frontline

The American democratic system is built on trust and openness, which is being exploited by Russia. The Achilles heel of democracy; i.e. freedom and openness, has been tested post-9-11 when the US government took aggressive security measures in an attempt to avoid any future 9-11 type attacks.

Intrusive intelligence and security services practices of monitoring and spying on the once sacred personal communication of its citizens is now a matter of fact. The rush to protect the US from Russian cyber attacks, designed to manipulate American citizens and exploit the democratic system, gave rise to zealot nationalism and authoritarian tendencies.

ALSO READ: Apple’s $1 trillion valuation: The creation of a Syrian mind

Russia’s digital offense, attacking the US in cyberspace, has been yielding the desired results. The profound and devastating disinformation volley is compromising the cohesion of American society, causing ethnic rifts and undermining the democratic system itself.

The Robert Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections has revealed Kremlin methods and sources with 13 Russian nationals indicted in the course of the probe. Cyber hacking and disinformation attacks continue into the 2018 midterm elections. Most recently, members of the US Senate are finding their emails targeted by hackers. The US is ill-equipped to combat the digital assault.

Beyond church and state

Perhaps outside actors without political titles are inclined to refocus our attention on the mounting concern over Russia’s global designs. Pope Francis is playing such a role beyond the limitation of church and state on his Baltic trip.

On the second day of his trip, he visited the site of the old KGB headquarters in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius offering respect to all of the lives lost at the hands of the Russians.

ALSO READ: ‘Arabhood’: A political story in ‘American’ English

The memory of the Russian occupation is still fresh in the minds of those who lived through it. The KGB museum that was once called the “Genocide Museum” has been renamed the “Museum of Occupations and Freedom Fights” focusing on Soviet atrocities.

The sequence of political posturing on the world stage between the US and Russia is painting a clear picture: the power balance is swinging back to the long-gone cold-war type world order.

Reverting to a polarity dynamic between the US and Russia is marking the beginning of a new cyclical pattern whereby nations will have to dance between the east and west to avoid the crushing swinging of the bipolar wrecking ball.

Channeling Muhammad Ali Clay, Kaepernick saga and Nike’s gamble

Monday, 17 September 2018 on Al-Arabiya.net

The line between sports and politics has always been tenuous during politically charged times.

These are such charged days in the US. The latest Nike advertisement featuring the most controversial athlete, Colin Kaepernick, stirred up an emotional response by other athletes, fans, politicians, observers and a big cross section of typically uninterested Americans.

The San Francisco 49ers Quarterback leading his team onto the field in the 2016 preseason games was observed taking a knee during the playing of the American National Anthem before the kickoff. It was his way of protesting social injustice befalling black young men for decades and the uptick in police shootings and excessive use of force.

The seemingly endless news items highlighting yet another death of black youth at the hands of law enforcement officers was intolerable. They were punished for being disenfranchised Americans who happen to be born with a different color skin to families with unfavorable circumstances in harsh environments.

The individual stories of these young men exemplifies a systematic phenomenon of “shoot-first-ask-later” exclusive to people of color in troubled pockets in major cities.

Kaepernick is not the first athlete to willingly embrace a challenge beyond the limitation of the structured rules of his game

Walid Jawad

Other teammates and fellow athletes joined Kaepernick in taking a knee during the anthem leading to a national controversy. It was quickly reframed as a disrespect to the American flag when President Donald Trump tweeted “Viewership declined 13 percent, the lowest in over a decade.

If the players stood proudly for our Flag and Anthem, and it is all shown on broadcast, maybe ratings could come back? Otherwise worse!” The controversy became about a position politicians took to defend the flag and show respect for the troops who put their lives on the line to keep it waving with pride and honor.

Although it is a worthy stance to take, it is a deflection from the actual issue of injustice and social strife endured by those who are living a life in the shadow of injustice and inequality. Kaepernick and others not only found their issue of equality and justice thwarted, but ultimately hijacked; to stand or to kneel - to be a patriot or to disrespect the flag.

Muhammad Ali

Kaepernick is not the first athlete to willingly embrace a challenge beyond the limitation of the structured rules of his game. Muhammad Ali Clay, the great boxer, the icon of his sport, the legendary athlete caused a controversy in his day.

His own civil rights convictions spilled over beyond the roped square of the boxing ring to the geopolitical fault lines of the US war in Vietnam in the 1960s. He was a fierce political activist fighting for what he believed was right in the same dedication and power he showed in the boxing ring.

The reasons Muhammad Ali cited for refusing his induction orders to enlist to fight in Vietnam was framed in religious terms, but it was only his way to position the argument. His issue was grounded in civil rights activism in defense of the injustice levied against black americans of that era.

ALSO READ: The Arab wave in US Congress

Ali was quoted as saying: “My conscience won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America. And shoot them for what ... they never called me n----r, they never lynched me, they didn’t put no dogs on me, they didn’t rob me of my nationality, rape or kill my mother and father. ... How can I shoot them poor people? Just take me to jail,” he said.

Ali framed his position through religion, Kaepernick through nationalism. Both objected to the same injustice relegating a section of American society to a guilty till proven innocent default.

Indeed Nike understood the risks that Kaepernick is taking. It is fair to say that they were guided by the reflection on Muhammad Ali’s case where he stood on the right side of history while risking everything.

It couldn’t be any simpler, it could not be any more powerful “Believe is something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” Indeed it is a gamble Nike is taking recognizing the gravity of the historic judgment this moment is pregnant with.

Nike’s calculated gamble

For Nike to engage the controversy in such an explosive fashion, featuring Kaepernick, in a two-minute long ad is nothing short of a gamble. Nike was betting on its core consumer base of millennials and those under 35 years old to agree with its stance for justice and equality.

Digitally connected youth are overriding the narrow view and agenda of politicians by projecting unifying their voices over social media, unbound by conventional allegiances. The initial sensational reporting featured in mainstream media and social media was of people setting their Nike products on fire.

ALSO READ: Apple’s $1 trillion valuation: The creation of a Syrian mind

It is easy to show powerful imagery of destruction than to show actions of support; customers deciding to buy Nike products instead of other brands cannot be easily captured in a viral clip. Yet there are observable indicators showing exactly how some customers decided to show their support for Nike’s message in actions. Nike’s stock hit a record high last Thursday at $83.90.

The analysis of Christopher Svezia, Webush Securities, placed a 12-month price level of $90 a share. This is a measurable indicators of the level of support Nike is receiving. Although a financial decision, it is part of cunning marketing effort turning their sport brand into a political statement for justice; wearing Nike is to stand for social justice.

Market segment

The SSRS Omnibus poll shows 44 percent of Nike’s core customer market segment of 18 to 34 agree with Nike compared to 32 percent who oppose. The percentage goes even higher for the 35 to 44 age group with 52 percent support.

Customers using their pocketbooks to express their political views is only one measurable aspect while social media shows another.

ALSO READ: ‘Arabhood’: A political story in ‘American’ English

Nike gained 170,000 new Instagram followers. The Kaepernick posting garnered the second most liked in Nike’s social media history. Facebook and twitter saw similar uptick for Kaepernick and Nike with more discussions, likes, comments, and shares.

Nike’s commemorative ad celebrating its 30 years of its “Just Do It” moto featuring Kaepernick transformed the company from one that competes against other sport apparel manufacturers to one that stands for social justice “Believe is something, even if it means sacrificing everything”; now in a league of its own.

Kaepernick, Serena, and …

Kaepernick is not on his own. Serena Williams the black female tennis champion and perhaps the greatest female athlete of her time had to fight bigotry on the US Open championship court last week.

This is not her first fight to bring the struggles of unequal pay and gender equality to the fore. She was penalized for the same behavior that male tennis players got away with unscathed, arguably costing her a comeback title. She exposed the double standard by which the sport treats women vs men.

When the masses are shielded from political activism by apathy and cynicism it takes someone like Colin Kaepernick to risk everything to remind a society of what their Constitution should afford them.