"A woman goes through a completely unique experience and surgery and finding oneself doesn’t change that."

"Being a little girl is a whole epic book, you know? You can’t have that just because you want to be a woman."

Said the singer Macy Gray, quoted in "Macy Gray tells Piers Morgan: 'Just because you change your body parts doesn’t make you a woman'" (NY Post).

Here's the whole interview, which begins with her explanation of why she thinks the United States needs a new flag. I'll make it start where Morgan introduces the topic, What is a woman? He asks her for her definition, and she answers before reflecting on what to say about trans women:

 

Morgan moves straight to the question of trans women participating in women's sports. He supports trans rights, but not that. She enthusiastically proclaims, "I totally agree."

July 4th.

"South Carolinians Mock Redesigned Palmetto Tree on Proposed State Flag."

 The NYT reports.

Scott Malyerck, a political consultant who helped create the design as a member of the South Carolina State Flag Study Committee... "It’s hard to come up with a quintessential palmetto tree that everyone will be in favor of.”... 

Ronnie W. Cromer, a state senator who helped create the flag study committee, said... "It would be nice to have a little nicer-looking tree.”... 

[T]he state has not had one official design for the flag since 1940, when the flag code was repealed.... “The idea is just to make it historically accurate and uniform,” Mr. Malyerck said. “Flag manufacturers should not decide what it should look like.” 

Here's the proposed flag, which relied on a 1910 pencil drawing:

And here's the pencil drawing, which was done by a woman:

The new flag designers seem to have gotten caught up in the idea of honoring the woman, and they went quite literal. A flag image needs a stark, shapely outline. A pencil drawing — like this one — can be sketchy, impressionistic, indicating light and shade. That's not going to work for a flag.

To make a good palmetto tree flag, look for some actual flags that use an image of a tree and select the most successful ones, for example this flag of a county in Norway (Vest-Agder) that depicts an oak tree:

Why Drew Brees is trending on Twitter — lots of hostility for saying this:

Highlight: @readdanwrite asks @drewbrees what the star NFL quarterback thinks about "players kneeling again when the NFL season starts."@drewbrees: “I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country.”

Full exchange: pic.twitter.com/MpCkFyOMed

— Yahoo Finance (@YahooFinance) June 3, 2020

Tangled up in red, white, and blue.

"Trump supporters displayed a giant flag as the 2 groups jostled for position. Some of the pro-impeachment group got tangled up with that flag and the people holding it. And one woman wound up on the ground. There were no punches thrown, and cooler heads soon prevailed" — says the voiceover in video at "Pro impeachment rally in La Crosse met with counter rally of Trump supporters" (WXOW, La Crosse).

La Crosse is the home base of Ron Kind, who, according to yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is the only Wisconsin congressman who had not yet declared how he would vote on impeachment.

Kind is a centrist Democrat who represents a western Wisconsin district narrowly carried by Trump in 2016. Of the 31 Democrats across the country who hold seats carried by Trump, almost all have nevertheless announced plans to support impeachment. Kind is the last of these Democrats to announce how he will vote, according to some tallies kept by national media outlets....

ADDED: From Kind's Wikipedia page:

[In 2009, Kind] refused to join in the effort... to have Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) step down amid an ethics probe involving Rangel's taxes. “We're all ultimately human and none of us are perfect and we're all prone to mistakes from time to time,” Kind had explained. “If that becomes that new standard - that any mistake is subject to dismissal or losing their position - then that's going to be a very tough standard for each and every member to have to live up to."

There's a good sentiment to contemplate today... as the House rushes to impeach Trump for saying something in a phone call that was arguably imperfect.

At the Wild Game Café...

... you can run amok.

The photo was taken from the car as we drove through Illinois (on U.S. Route 24) on our way to West Lafayette on Friday. We've been back since last night, but that was our quick trip to Indiana. So don't think I never travel.

And do think of using the Althouse Portal when you've got things to buy at Amazon.

"Yes, it is overwrought and jingoistic. It glorifies war. It trumpets self-righteousness."

Writes Arvin Temkar in a WaPo 4th-of-July-weekend column titled "My fellow liberals hate Lee Greenwood’s ‘God Bless the USA.’ I love it. On Independence Day, there’s always room for a syrupy salute."

Overwrought, jingoistic, self-righteousness, war-glorifying... really? Why does it make some people feel that's what it says when that's absolutely not in the words? Where does that extra-textualism come from?

Let's look at the words. It begins with a completely personal focus on the nuclear family:

If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life
And I had to start again with just my children and my wife

It then expresses appreciation for the country because of exactly one thing: freedom. If the man had to start again with nothing... Well, actually, he's not up for the hypothetical without keeping his wife and children. But if all that he'd worked for were lost, he'd still be "lucky" to be living in America because he'd have freedom. 

I'd thank my lucky stars to be livin' here today
'Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can't take that away

I always wonder at this point: Yes, but what if you didn't have that foundation of wife and children, would freedom be enough to give you the nerve and the drive to start over again? And also: But they can take freedom away! However you want to interpret the flag — some might think it stands for the glorification of war — symbolism doesn't ensure that the thing symbolized will not be taken away. The problem with the song at this point is naivete, and one suspects faux naivete.

Next we get the chorus, which begins with an underscoring of the importance of freedom:

And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free

The clunker in there is "at least." We go from the idea that a man could rebuild his life if only he has freedom to the idea of being proud about living in a country that might not offer anything else but freedom. (By the way, there's no antecedent for "where." Grammatically, it should be something like I'm proud to live in America where at least I know I'm free, but that would introduce the conceptual problem of non-Americans who live in America.  I'm proud to be a citizen of America where at least I know I'm free... too many syllables.)

The chorus then brings in the "men who died," but maintains the focus:

And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me

Not all who fought for freedom died, not all who fought (whether they died or lived) were men, and these people did not give you the right to freedom. The Declaration of Independence — which we celebrate this weekend — says that the Creator gave us these rights and that the people institute government to protect the rights that God endowed us with. Our government sometimes goes to war, and when it does men (and women) may die, and sometimes the war — notably the Revolutionary War — is fought to protect our ability to exercise our rights, but the war dead haven't given us our rights.

That's a little sermon from me about rights and the meaning of The Declaration of Independence. But let's continue with the chorus:

And I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land
God bless the USA

That part is simple enthusiasm — love for country (which works for any country, free or not) — and a simple prayer addressed to the God who wasn't noticed in the first line of the chorus. Hopefully, he's used to weathering disrespect and isn't too irked at another demand for blessing.

Now, we get the other verse, the only other verse, and it's that from-the-mountains-to-the-prairies review of geography that we've come to expect in songs and speeches:

From the lakes of Minnesota, to the hills of Tennessee
Across the plains of Texas, from sea to shining sea
From Detroit down to Houston and New York to LA

The man who wrote the song — Lee Greenwood — was born in LA. I'm just reading his Wikipedia bio now. I see he's lived his life mostly in LA and Reno and Las Vegas. You might want to factor that into your understanding of the lyrics. As for how Tennessee got such pride of place in the song, Greenwood's wife is a former Miss Tennessee. She's his fourth wife. That makes me think of the first verse in a completely new way. My wondering is over. I think Greenwood would be just fine starting again even without his wife. Divorce still stands for freedom and they can't take that away.

The song's almost over. There's a couple of lines that seem to be written to set up another singing of the chorus. At first glance, they seem inconsequential, merely serviceable, but now that I reread them, I find them really very bad:

Well, there's pride in every American heart

That's plainly a lie, and it's a presumptuous lie that's out of keeping with his supposedly favorite value, freedom. It's not possible that every American is proud to be an American. Speak for yourself. Invite others to sing along if they agree. But don't purport to say how everyone else feels. Our freedom means that we are free to feel humility or even contempt for America. Your enthusiasm for freedom falls flat.

The final lead-in to the chorus is:

And it's time we stand and say that...

Don't tell me what to do. It's a free country.

But it's a song. As Bob Dylan said in his Nobel Prize speech, "songs are unlike literature." "They're meant to be sung, not read." They're "alive in the land of the living." And "God Bless the USA" is a big sing-along song that comes alive when people — free people — choose to stand up and sing, not because Greenwood dictates that "it's time" they stand up and sing, but because they feel inspired by something about the melody and the key words — flag, freedom, proud, love, USA. No one's parsing the words.

I've never parsed the words before just now, and I've heard the song many times and understood the spirit. I was surprised to find what I did in the lyrics. I was only motivated to look closely because of the WaPo column, because I didn't believe the lyrics would support Temkar's assertion that the song is overwrought, jingoistic, self-righteousness, and war-glorifying. I was right, and Temkar is wrong. But Temkar and I share the opinion that the song delivers a real-time experience of expressing enthusiastic love for America. It's alive in the land of the free.

"Is Madison’s flag offensive?"

"Some troubled by appropriation of Zia Pueblo symbol."

Is Madison's flag offensive?

Yes. It appropriates a Zia Pueblo symbol.

Yes. It randomly gestures at something that is not related to Madison.

Yes. It doesn't convey American political values.

No. It successfully embodies whatever it is that is Madison.

No. Appropriating Indian things is an American tradition.

No. It's just a flag with a design. Get over yourselves, Madisonians.

I'm striving to remain neutral as the left eats itself.

 

pollcode.com free polls

Tricking CPAC Trumpers to wave the Russian flag — What are the lessons?

Social media had great fun with something that happened yesterday at CPAC:

Jason Charter, 22, and Ryan Clayton, 36, passed out roughly 1,000 red, white, and blue flags, each bearing a gold-emblazoned “TRUMP” in the center, to an auditorium full of attendees waiting for President Trump to address the conference. Audience members waved the pennants—and took pictures with them—until CPAC staffers realized the trick: They were Russian flags.

What are the lessons?

1. There are lots of people out there who are not on your side. Withhold your trust until you know who you're dealing with. There are endless scams. Don't be a soft touch.

2. Young guys and their pranks lighten the grind of politics. It was fun back in the 60s when Yippies found cool ways to put across what were weighty political opinions, and it's fun now. We need our clowns, including the pranksters who figure out ways to offload the clownery onto others.

3. Don't pass on messages that others have handed you. Think of your own ideas. Let the words of your mouth and the gestures of your body come in a form shaped by your mind. Be original. Be yourself. Have a self that's worth being.

Chelsea Clinton takes her 2-year-old daughter Charlotte to her "1st protest rally."

The event — in Times Square (in NYC) — was called "Today, I Am a Muslim Too," which doesn't sound like a "protest." Isn't it more of a positive happening, like what we once called a "love-in"?

“Thank you to all who organized #IAmAMuslimToo today – Charlotte’s 1st protest rally. #NoBanNoWallNoRaids,” Chelsea captioned a snap featuring a popular protest sign that shows a woman wearing an American flag hijab.

Speaking of hippies, I remember when clothing made from the American flag was considered a desecration — not pro-America at all. I mean, Abbie Hoffman got arrested for this:



I'm not saying there's no free-speech right to use the flag to express an opinion. I'm just asking why a woman in an American flag hijab reads as a Muslim embracing American values.

It's the "Here our Voice" poster for Women's March on Washington.

That's what it says in the caption at Isthmus, and I can't "here" it, but I c it, and it looks just terrible:



Elsewhere, I'm seeing the poster as "Hear Our Voice," so let me move past the inane caption and look at the poster.

There's just way too much going on. Too many elements. That's a problem in itself. But look at these elements.

Reince Priebus calls Trump "a Socratic method guy" — "It kind of reminds me of being back in law school."

"He asks a lot of questions, asks questions about questions. And he will keep going until he’s satisfied with the information that he’s getting."

That was on "Face the Nation" today, in answer to probing by John Dickerson about whether Trump is getting intelligence briefings. Priebus says he is  — "it feels like every day." And then:

I’m not sure if it is every day. But it’s a lot. And that’s who he is. It’s someone who studies and someone that wants to be informed and it’s someone who asks a lot of questions and listens.

Dickerson asks if Trump is "a details guy," and Priebus says "He is a details guy," and then "I would say it’s he’s a Socratic method guy" and the rest of the quote I've set out above.

Dickerson asks Priebus what he does when Trump tweets something that's not true, such as when he said there were millions of illegal votes in California. Priebus's lame response was that we don't know it's not true. Dickerson patiently, politely nailed him:

I guess [the] question is, when you’re president, can you just offer a theory that has no evidence behind it, or does he have to tighten up his standard of proof?

We all know the answer to that question, but I appreciate that Dickerson had the presence of mind to put it in the form of a question... especially nice, since Priebus had just expressed admiration for the Socratic method. What can Priebus say (except You got me, Socrates)? He makes a lateral leap:

I think he’s done a great job. I think the president-elect is someone who has pushed the envelope and caused people to think in this country, has not taken conventional thought on every single issue. And it’s caused people to look at things that maybe they have taken for granted. 

Priebus distracts us onto the subject of Trump's ability to distract us with some new nutty thing. Hey, here's a theory! Ever think about it that way? Then Priebus brings up the flag-burning issue. That was a faux pas from Trump, wasn't it? So why shift to that? Priebus says flag-burning "is an 80% issue" — meaning (I presume) that 80% of Americans want to punish protesters who burn flags as a way of expressing themselves.

And then you watch the news media and they say, well, it’s constitutional. Well, right, it is constitutional...

He means the Supreme Court has found a constitutional right to burn the flag as symbolic expression.

... and but it doesn’t mean it’s not a subject for debate and discussion for the Supreme Court to revisit down the road.

That is, a Supreme Court opinion on a constitutional matter does not stop the conversation about what the constitution means. A case can be overruled. And a Supreme Court appointment is in the offing. What issues will come to the foreground as we grill the new nominee? Why not make it flag burning? Whether the flag-burning decision is ever overruled, there's political advantage in getting us talking about how we feel about it.

America! The flag!  

It's an 80% issue.

4 reactions to Trump's flag-burning tweet.

2 days ago, Trump tweeted:

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

I've had a series of reactions:

1. Stern criticism of his disrespect for the right to freedom of speech: "Trump flaunts disrespect for American freedom of speech."

2. In an update to that post:

I see the way this — like that "millions of people who voted illegally" tweet — may be simply a trick to bait his antagonists and amuse his fans. It's just junk, a distraction, and it's funny the way we jump at what should be nothing. Does he think the presidency is his plaything, some kind of joke? To ask that is to be distracted, but from what? Perhaps from how serious he really is.

3. Observing that his tweet was effective in doing something he may have intended: Even more anti-Trump protesters will burn the flag, and their antics will be self-defeating.

4. Trump is the anti-Dukakis. He was doing exactly what Dukakis failed — disastrously — to do when he was asked the question  "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"



It seems like a crazy question, but I think it was intended to give Dukakis a chance to show that he was a human being, with genuine emotion. But Dukakis gave a legal, passionless answer: He's opposed to the death penalty. That is, making it personal doesn't change his answer: This is no time to show that I lose my mind when I feel deep anger.

I'm one of the few people who liked that about Dukakis. He stayed on track and proved his devotion to law. But just about everyone else seems to think he made a fatal error in not putting law to the side and showing his deep love for his wife and intense outrage at rape and murder.

Donald Trump, by contrast, reacting to some recent flag burning, not even confronted with a question, seized the occasion to get theatrically emotional about his love for the flag and his rage at its desecration.

Yes, there's important law that could be talked about, but he's not going there. He's the man of staunch feeling, not a robot like Dukakis.

Trump protesters take Trump bait.

"Protesters burned the United States flag outside of Trump International Hotel in New York City Tuesday, following President-elect Donald Trump’s suggestion that flag burners be jailed or lose their citizenship."

Isn't that why he said that — to get his haters burning flags, making themselves look bad? When I blogged Trump's tweet about flag burning, Yancey Ward commented: "And this is the explanation for his tweet about burning the American flag. Just watch what happens at every stop he makes."

ADDED: My more substantial blog post about the flag-burning tweet is actually here: "Trump flaunts disrespect for American freedom of speech."

Trump is going out on what he's calling a "Thank You Tour."

Beginning in Cincinnati on Thursday evening.

IN THE COMMENTS: Yancey Ward says:

And this is the explanation for his tweet about burning the American flag. Just watch what happens at every stop he makes.

Trump flaunts disrespect for American freedom of speech.

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016

What focused him on this unnecessary-to-the-transition topic?

I guess it's the flag-burning that's accompanied some of the post-election protesting:

On Veterans Day, just a couple days after Election day, a group of about 150 [Hampshire College] students burned an American flag in the middle of campus during the dark of the night. “I don’t think anyone here was angry about it (flag burning),” says junior environmental studies major Aaron Rollins. “Emotions were running high after the election and people weren’t happy. We don’t support anything about Donald Trump.”

And:

Students at American University in Washington, D.C., torched American flags in protest of Donald Trump’s win in Tuesday’s presidential election.

If Trump's enthusiasm for punishing flag-burning arises out of vengeance toward his political antagonists, it only makes it worse.

Flag-burning and freedom of expression were one of Justice Scalia's favorite subjects. He joined the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, which said there is a free-speech right to burn the flag as symbolic expression, and he loved — in his public performances — to say things like:

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king.”

Donald Trump also is not king. And I'd like to see better evidence that he knows the scope of the job the people have given him, which is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, including the First Amendment.

AND: I see the way this — like that "millions of people who voted illegally" tweet — may be simply a trick to bait his antagonists and amuse his fans. It's just junk, a distraction, and it's funny the way we jump at what should be nothing. Does he think the presidency is his plaything, some kind of joke? To ask that is to be distracted, but from what? Perhaps from how serious he really is.

An atrocious sculpture has been recommended to be installed in our beloved Library Mall.

But it's not too late! The selection committee approved this thing...



I don't know what could possibly have convinced them that this thing belongs in the heart of the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus — as opposed to some soulless glass-and-steel corporate plaza in a city — but the City Council must still vote for the thing. Please help keep this horror out of sacred space.

It's by RDG Dahlquist Art Studio of Des Moines, Iowa — art studio of Des Moines, Iowa! —  and they've titled it "Both/And – Tolerance/Innovation." And just that title makes me mad. Some design studio in Des Moines, Iowa is trying to use language to influence a bunch of politicians in Madison, Wisconsin. And they've decided there are 2 things to jerk them around over that embody what the university is hot to express right now: diversity and technology. And diversity gets to be a misshapen/unformed stone and technology is a row of sharp-edged metal plates.

If that thing gets erected — and it is phallic (and therefore disinclusive of women (or are we the lumpy stone?)) — the only question will be how to employ it in political theater and protest. Lots of places to hang signs and symbols. You know that's what we do in Madison. Here's a scene from the 2011 Wisconsin protests when somebody hung a "solidarity" t-shirt on the public sculpture that is the statue of Civil War hero Hans Christian Heg:



You see the State Capitol in the background. In Madison, Wisconsin, you're not allowed to build a building taller than the State Capitol. And yet this sculpture the Des Moines studio presents to us looks like the skyline of a city filled with skyscrapers.

Is this what we want in our city as we enter the era of the sky-scraper-building President, Donald Trump?

ADDED: How about a completely traditional bronze sculpture — like the one of Heg — of one notable graduates or faculty of the University of Wisconsin. Wikipedia has a big list of the possibilities. Just pick one. I'll get the discussion going: Lorraine Hansberry.

Facing the reality of a Trump presidency: "Donald Trump’s Victory Is Met With Shock Across a Wide Political Divide."

That's the headline at the NYT website for an article that looks like this in the printed newspaper:



The photos in the 2 places are different. On the website, there's actually a picture of Hillary, seen from the back, her arms outstretched and touching the shoulders of 2 men — unidentified "supporters." She needs support as she exits from the the center of the national stage.

Meanwhile, here's Trump, marching onto the stage. He's clapping his hands at the head of an army of Trumpions. If you were here at Meadhouse, you would have heard my spontaneous singing of "Trump, Trump, Trump, the Trumps are marching," to the tune of "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp":

Tramp, tramp, tramp, the boys are marching,
Cheer up comrades they will come,
And beneath the starry flag
We shall breathe the air again,
Of the freeland in our own beloved home.

That's a Civil War song, written to give hope to war prisoners. Speaking of the starry flag, I'm seeing this:

Flag burning on 5th Avenue in front of Trump Tower right now. pic.twitter.com/1LAGHCNjxL

— Patrick deHahn (@patrickdehahn) November 10, 2016

That's featured at another NYT article, "'Not Our President': Protests Spread After Donald Trump’s Election":

Thousands of people across the country marched, shut down highways, burned effigies and shouted angry slogans on Wednesday night to protest the election of Donald J. Trump as president.

Speaking of marching.

The protests on Wednesday came just hours after Hillary Clinton, in her concession speech, asked supporters to give Mr. Trump a “chance to lead.”...

And Obama, for his part, had said "We are all now rooting for his success...The peaceful transfer of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy.”

In New York, crowds converged at Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue at 56th Street in Midtown Manhattan, where the president-elect lives.

They chanted “Not our president” and “New York hates Trump” and carried signs that said, among other things, “Dump Trump.”...

Outside the man's home.

The demonstrations forced streets to be closed, snarled traffic and drew a large police presence. They started in separate waves from Union Square and Columbus Circle and snaked their way through Midtown.

Stopping the flow of traffic in NYC... that might not be the best way to build political support. Ask Chris Christie.

But the protests are a predictable and an inevitable part of American election expression. One can only imagine the opposition that would have confronted Hillary Clinton, had she won. More important is how the winners handle themselves. I'm seeing grace, modesty, and respect. Or that's what I hope I'm seeing. I think we should expect and demand the best from Trump. As a newcomer to politics, he invented a way to win the presidency. He saw how to win, and even if you think he made some scurrilous choices, it worked, and he won. The candidacy is over now. That job is done. That building is built. You can look back on it and say what you like and don't like about it, but he got the job done. The new job is being President, and I want to believe that he's applying his unusual mind to the invention of a way to be an excellent President. I'm not one of the not-our-President protesters. I'm a citizen who knows damn well he's the next President and I'm going to be insisting that he excel at what he's undertaken to do.

"A noose displayed in this fashion has no place on campus. Together, the athletics department and the university's Office of Legal Affairs..."

"... are initiating a review of stadium policies with the goal of ensuring that symbols of this type are not displayed in our stadium again."

A letter from UW chancellor Rebecca Blank and UW athletic director Barry Alvarez, about the costume at Saturday night's football game. We talked about that the other day in my post titled, "Was that a 'racist' costume at the University of Wisconsin football game last night?" I approved of the way the incident was treated at the time: By respecting free speech and simply using more speech to reason with the costume-wearer and persuade him to voluntarily remove the noose from his neck.

The man was wearing a Hillary Clinton mask and another man, in a Trump mask, was pulling Hillary along. But the man in the Hillary mask also had an Obama mask on the back of his head, and a photo was taken from the back, so what you saw was Obama in a noose, an image people associated with the history of lynching black people in America. Seen from the front, with Hillary in the noose, the American history association might be with hangings in effigy that were standard political street protest in the Revolutionary War era.



This new letter, however, shows the campus authorities revealing that they want to make a rule that would exclude symbolic speech precisely because of the viewpoint. That is, they are flaunting their intent to violate freedom of speech. They're not even pretending that the rule would be viewpoint neutral. I could imagine a rule against rope premised on some theory that rope is some sort of safety or crowd-control problem. We still might smoke out the intent to suppress a particular political viewpoint. But here, the university seems to want credit for censoring the message they don't like.

Perhaps they don't care what a court might say about freedom of speech, and it's all only about expressing their own message that they are doing something about a problem they feel pressure to solve. But even if they don't mind losing in court or they're hoping that their rule is never challenged in court, they should want to express the message that freedom of speech matters, including speech that utilizes props — like ropes and flags.

(I say flags because of the most important Supreme Court case on the subject, which recognized the free-speech right to burn the U.S. flag to express an opinion. Here, read it yourself. It's written by the liberal hero William Brennan and joined by the conservative hero Antonin Scalia.)

What made me say "Oh! Interesting" in this new Trump ad.

"'Two Americas: Economy' is a 30-second spot that will run in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado," says Politico pointing at this new Trump ad:



Did you catch what struck me? Let me clip it for you:



I'm thinking about Colin Kaepernick and the sudden intrusion of an old simmering issue: Why should black people love America?