Do the players and/or the owners understand?

Understand the real issue that is.  The real issue is that we fans don't like players dissing the US flag and/or the American national anthem.  It irritates us down deep.  I will avoid the more descriptive words for our feelings because they are a little too vulgar for my blog.   And when we fans get irritated, we stop buying game tickets and we stop watching games on TV.  Which is bad for business.   Any fool ought to understand this by now. 
   Apparently there are a bunch of fools out there.  I have heard one bunch  claim that President Trump's disapproval was divisive with the owners.  Nonsense,  the president is just one guy.  It's the masses of football fans who have been turned off to the game that matter.
   Another bunch of fools say dissing the flag and the anthem is free speech.  Maybe it is, but just because speech is free doesn't mean we fans have to like it.  We don't.   That sort of free speech has taken a solid hit on TV viewership.  A little more such free speech and NFL football will be down there with European soccer matches.  And only available on U-Tube.
   Good luck NFL.  Maybe common sense will penetrate before it's too late.  

US has been getting hostages released

Let's see, those three from North Korea, now one from Venezuela.  Neither country is a friend of America.  But they released their hostage[s].  Either out of fear of what we might do to them, or a desire to butter up the Yankees to get something from us.  Either way, we get our people back.  Which is a good thing.

Keep the banks from going broke

Great Depression 2.0, back in 2008, was caused by big banks and insurance companies going broke.  They went broke by making loans to flaky borrowers (Greece, Puerto Rico) and flaky deals (mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps), not keeping enough cash on hand to cover losses.  As the smoke cleared, and we launched into an 8 year depression, the Democrats passed a bunch of regulations (Dodd Frank) , and failed to prosecute anyone who was running the failed firms.
   I say we could have a more dependable financial sector if the people running it, CEO's and the like, had a real fear of personal retribution when they drove their companies onto the rocks.  Start with more aggressive prosecution under existing laws.  Pass a law making financial executives personally liable for failure of their firms.  Enlist that army of unemployed lawyers to sure to socks off  anyone who bankrupts his bank.
    In short, scrap the regulations.  Bring on the ambulance chasing lawyers.

The NORKs, on again, off again, maybe on again?

At least President Trump understands that his mission is to obtain a deal helpful to the United States, rather than just obtain a deal that looks good in the democratic MSM, like Obama did.  We want the NORKs denuclearized.  We offered the NORKs an end to the embargo, a signed peace treaty to end the Korean War, a guarantee of survival of Kim and of his government, and maybe some investment to spiff up their disastrous economy.  Apparently this ain't enough to get Kim to give up his nukes.  I assume Kim feels that a good dozen working nukes is a better guarantee of his and his regime's survival than any amount of Yankee promises.  Can't say that I disagree with Kim on this.
   So, the NORKs made noises about keeping their nukes.  And President Trump replied by cancelling the summit.  Probably the right move.  As of this morning the NORKs are making back off noises, and making  lets do the summit anyhow noises. 
  Say tuned for further developments. 

Words of the Weasel Part 52

Informant vs Spy.  In real life these two nouns mean exactly the same thing.  But in today's strange politics the democrats seem to think that "informant" sounds better than "spy".  They are calling the spy planted upon the Trump campaign in 2016 was really only an informant, which sounds so much nicer than spy.
   I will admit that "informant" is used in law enforcement stories whereas "spy" is used in military and international stories, but they both work the same.  A harmless looking individual is planted on the enemy and passes useful/damaging information to the other side. 
   If the spy/informant planted on the Trump campaign story holds up, it will cause a furore, probably as big as Watergate. 

Difference between investment and gambling

I think there is one.  Investment means taking good real money and lending it to business enterprises to build factories,power stations, and pipelines, purchase machinery, aircraft, motor vehicles, and ships, to buy inventory,  stuff that grows the business.  Gambling is fun, but the money doesn't go to finance business, it goes back and forth between players.  To keep the economy growing we need to encourage investment and discourage gambling with laws, regulation, and taxes.  
    The stock market makes investment in stocks attractive, mostly because investors can sell their stock for cash, anytime.  And quickly, call your broker, and the sale will go thru that day or the next, and the cash will be in your checking account in another day or so.  That's liquidity, and it vastly increases the desirability of stocks as an investment.  And companies can issue and sell stock, raising cash for merely printing a stock certificate.  If you are starting a company, the ability to issue company stock to raise money is a real boon.
   And then we have those things that are mostly gambling.  The morning NPR news regularly reports "Dow futures are up (or down)".  I don't really know just how Dow futures work, but I seriously doubt that any of the money that changes hands gets to businesses for investment.  I think  the money just goes back and forth between financial players.  Pure gambling.   Same goes for "derivatives"  another poorly understood (at least I don't really understand them)  financial deal which just passes money around among players. 
   We always need more investment and less gambling. 

Oxford History of the American People by Samuel Elliot Morison

This is American history as it ought to be written.  Morison starts with pre Columbian America and takes the story right up to the present day (in Morison's case 1965).   Morison is a fine writer, his text reads as well as anything by Bruce Catton  or Shelby Foote.  He covers everyone of any interest, and every political thought that occurred in America.  He leaves nothing out. And he make it all interesting.  The book is massive, 1150 pages.
   Morison is an fascinating guy.  He was a Harvard professor.  He held a commission in the Navy reserve.  When WWII broke out, Morison became the Navy's historian.  He went to sea, pretty much for the duration.  He was at the Torch landings in North Africa, he was at Midway.  After the war he single handedly wrote the Navy's history of World War II, in  fifteen volumes, The History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II.   And he collaborated with Henry Steele Commager to write Growth of the American Republic, (usually known as Morison and Commager) which was the standard college US history text for decades.  They don't make Harvard professors like that anymore. 
   It's a fine read by one of the best American historians ever.