Ah, the post unwritten! Just three days ago, I was considering a post about the ethics dilemma I face regarding the NFL. On September 21 I read that four NFL players ( Seattle Seahawks’ Michael Bennett, Philadelphia Eagles’ Malcolm Jenkins, Eagles’ Torrey Smith and former NFL player Anquan Boldin) sent a letter beseeching Commissioner Roger Goodell to make November a month of “social activism,” meaning a month of promoting Black Lives Matters, attacking as police’ and the nation whose public they protect as racist.
“Since 2016, police have shot over 300 men and women in this country. Some of the names and stories are familiar—Jordan Edwards, Trayvon Martin, Alton Sterling, but hundreds of others are not,” the memo says. This is typical of the level of erudition much of the news media, and many voices on the Left, including President Obama, have been enabling and praising since Colin Kaepernick began his showboating, incoherent protest against the National Anthem last year. The officer who shot Jordan Edwards was fired and indicted. Trayvon Martin wasn’t shot by police. I can’t imagine how Mike Brown was left off the list, with a reference to “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” Probably a typo.
The next day, we learned that Aaron Hernandez, the Patriots star convicted of murder who hanged himself in prison in April, suffered from a severe case of CTE, “the most severe case” ever seen in a former football player so young.” He was 27. Of course, not a lot of 27 year olds are in a position to have their brains dissected. CTE is the progressive brain disease caused by repeated brain trauma, and there is convincing evidence that the NFL is crippling its players.
What’s a responsible ethicist to do? But it was a busy week, and I thought I could get the piece written over the weekend, which would have been timely if President Trump hadn’t jumped into the issue with both feet. The President ad-libbed an attack on the Kaepernickies during a rally in Alabama, saying,
“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!’” Trump said. “You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s going to say, ‘That guy that disrespects our flag, he’s fired.’ And that owner, they don’t know it [but] they’ll be the most popular person in this country…But do you know what’s hurting the game more than that? When people like yourselves turn on television and you see those people taking the knee when they’re playing our great national anthem. The only thing you could do better is if you see it, even if it’s one player, leave the stadium. I guarantee things will stop. Things will stop. Just pick up and leave. Pick up and leave. Not the same game anymore, anyway.”
- This one is simple, and paramount: Nobody pays to go to sporting events to see continuations of the political disputes and debates they watch sports to avoid. Sports is entertainment, and entertainment is escapism. The same goes for music concerts, movies, plays and musicals. A football player making me watch his half-baked “protest” on the field is no more welcome than the cast of a musical making me sit still to hear its partisan ranting after the show.
Sporting events and other popular entertainment are crucial because they unite society, even if its members disagree passionately on other matters. It is dangerous and unhealthy to remove this crucial oasis of relief from debate, especially now. This should be obvious. It isn’t obvious only to full-time activists who don’t care about the purpose of entertainment or the needs of their audiences. Their objective is to achieve a political agenda by any means possible, regardless of the damage to civil society.
- A term being used a lot lately on conservative websites is “normals,” describing the Americans who don’t regard politics as the sole focus of their waking hours, and who resent, as the Wall Street Journal termed it, The Politicization Of Everything.
It’s a useful distinction, and there is no question that the President, as misguided and inappropriate as his remarks were, wins the argument with the many, many millions who just want to watch their favorite teams without being bombarded by political bombast and grandstanding.
- The NFL could have and should have stopped this train wreck before it left the station by simply re-stating the same standards it had consistently maintained for decades. Players are welcome to have political views and to take part in demonstrations and other activism, but not while wearing their uniforms, and not on the field. Almost exactly a year ago, a player was told by the NFL that he could not wear cleats commemorating 9/11.
Why then did pro football allow Colin Kaepernick to make a far more divisive and incoherent political statement on the field later in the year? The answer is cowardice and abandonment of integrity in the face of race-based politics, the same reason the University of Missouri capitulated to racialist demands by its football team. Most of the players in the NFL are black, so the mostly white leaders of the NFL decided to avoid a confrontation. In doing so, it aligned itself with groups and positions that a large segment of the NFL’s fan base abhors, resulting in lost ratings and revenues. This was a breach of business ethics. The NFL’s business is football, not picking sides in the culture wars.
- Yesterday, over a hundred NFL players “took a knee” during the National Anthem to protest…something…as the news media cheered them on. This was predictable, and the big question is whether the President prompted the reaction intentionally. I am certain he did not; we know by now that Trump just blurts stuff out without considering consequences of any kind. The US doesn’t need any more division now, and Trump’s crude outburst was indefensible. Presidents should not comment negatively on the conduct of citizens when they are acting within their Constitutional rights. Nor should they interfere with the policies and disciplinary decisions of private businesses, which he did, and which President Obama also did when he endorsed and defended Kaepernick’s stunt last year.
Both were equally inappropriate and unethical, and abuses of power, influence and position. Of course, Obama’s statement was more dignified and articulate than Trump’s—whose wouldn’t be?—and everything Obama did was greeted with swooning and cheers from the media, while anything this President does is presumed to be an abomination. They were still two sides of the same unethical coin.
- What’s being protested, exactly. and why now? The protesters don’t know, and can’t articulate it themselves. On Sunday’s talking head shows, some apologists for this nonsense claimed it was the Anthem itself, because the third verse that nobody sings or considers part of the anthem contains ambiguous lyrics that race-baiters have claimed endorse slavery. The NFL is protesting music now? Kaepernick, despite all the articles about how thoughtful he is, never made a case for his own routine beyond saying, as a black man paid millions of dollars a year, that the U.S. “oppresses black people” and that “There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” Wait…The protest is over union members receiving their salaries while unproven charges are pending against them? Does the NFL players union agree with that position, especially since NFL players are charged with more serious felonies than any other pro athletes? Is the protest suddenly one against the President? If so, then why take it out on the National Anthem and the fans? And if so, isn’t the “protest” just a mass tantrum by a lot of politically ignorant millionaires because someone dared to challenge them? And what won’t the NFL permit on the field now? “Not My President” banners waved by the players as they are introduced?
The original protest was allegedly about “racial injustice.” That’s nice. And? Yes, there are racial inequities in U.S. society. We knew that. We certainly are more aware of that now than ever, since we just finished 8 years of an administration that was willing to undermine justice, language, reason and racial comity to try to turn the tide. Has the protest morphed into another smear of the President’s alleged “white supremacy” sympathies, for which the evidence is precisely zero other than Democratic and activist accusations?
- USA Today published the explanations of various players for their participation in the protest. This one was sadly typical:
“We hate that people are going to see it that we don’t respect the military, the men and women that are braver than us that go and put their life on the line…but we just wanted to send a message of unity and being together, and not standing for the disrespect…all of us want to send a message of unity, not just as a team but a fraternity of NFL players.”
What? You hate it that showing disrespect to the flag and the national anthem and following the example of a man who said that he couldn’t honor a nation that “oppressed” blacks is seen as disrespect for the flag, our institutions, and the soldiers who fought to preserve that nation you have so much contempt for? If you just want to to “send a message of unity and being together,” why not just hold hands and hug? Why is refusing to stand for the anthem appropriate? Isn’t this just “Everybody’s doing it, so it must be good”? If players were picking their noses during the anthem, would you do it too just to show unity?
If spectators and fans have to be subjected to this non-sports spectacle, shouldn’t the message the players are sending be clear and productive? Of course the news media and Democrats support the stunt, because if it just means “We hate the President,” that fine with them. Really? We want our sporting events, broadcast to the world, to feature on-field demonstrations against the Presidency?
That is irresponsible, self-destructive and insane.
***
That’s Part I; it will have to do for a morning warm-up today. Part II is on the way.
Ethics Alarms 
//If you just want to to “send a message of unity and being together,” why not just hold hands and hug? Why is refusing to stand for the anthem appropriate? Isn’t this just “Everybody’s doing it, so it must be good”? If players were picking their noses during the anthem, would you do it too just to show unity?//
This sums up the whole post for me.
When it come to matters of great importance, the NFL will always force their might and will upon miscreant players.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000408187/article/kaepernick-fined-for-wearing-beats-by-dre-headphones
Bingo
I keep looking for the next step.
So you protested, Now what?
Keep protesting? To what end?
If Colin did it right, just taking the knee once would have had an effect and shed light on his cause. (unfortunately he didn’t have a solid response to his cause and fumbled his reasoning.)
Now it’s diluted with no clear understanding of WHY they are doing it.
That is why it will fail.
The NFL which has been losing viewers will continue losing them at a greater rate now.
My Facebook friends, people more on the moderate side, were furious at what they saw and vowed to not watch another game.
I get a kick out of NFL brass and owners coming to the defense of their “players” for whom they have some much respect and concern. You know, the employees they sign to “contracts” that allow the teams to stop paying the employees whenever the teams feel like it.
I find it interesting that these athletes consider words to be divisive but yet their physical actions, which are intentionally dividing themselves from the mainstream public, are somehow seen as being appropriate. I perceive a double standard.
These athletes can do whatever the hell they want, but unity in our society is something that these athletes simply don’t understand. The national anthem is one of those few truly nationally unifying things that shouldn’t be shunned by anyone that is mouthing unity.
Shunning the unifying national anthem is another item in a long list of illogical social justice warrior nonsense.
Amazing that this all started under the presidency of Barack Obama.
This was not going on under George W. Bush. I mean, Bush was rather controversial, especially with his decision to invade Iraq.
And yet, none of the players were kneeling during the Anthem. And the notion that there was unanimous, or even near-unanimous, support for Bush or the invasion of Iraq among football players is amusing, at best.
Not under Obama, Michael. Under LBJ. … I was wondering when something similar would surface. It’s just too too easy.
Cassandra speaks, and there is no one to listen:
There needs to be discovered some sort of *key* or a Decrypter so to be able to understand this strange and really rather comic complication, as well as many other ones.
My theory as it stands now — I admit this is a recent development in my grasp of American politics and society — is that this and many other events-of-conflict are symptoms of social madness. Well, that would seem obvious, except that no one seems to be able to locate and to name the culprit: the main cause.
If you look on YouTune there are people ‘publicly’ putting fire to their NFL football equipment and uniforms and protesting against the ‘unpatriotic’ gestures of these Black football players (or have some Whites kneeled now in *solidarity*?) As Jack has written, above, no one seems to be able to clearly express what precisely they are protesting.
But those who wish to insist that appropriate patriotism demands standing or saluting, what exactly do they mean by ‘patriotism’? Patriotisim to what exactly? I suggest that no one can define a correct patriotism, or in any case that there is tremendous confusion about what this means and should mean. Some are speaking of the dead who died *defending* America’s ‘right to protest’. And what do they refer to there? To Iraq? What a terrible joke! That war was absolutely, thoroughly, completely, 100% and undeniably a criminal assault by an unrestrained bellicose war-power. Here it is in bold:
That war was absolutely, thoroughly, completely, 100% and undeniably a criminal assault by an unrestrained bellicose war-power.
If you are going to talk about ‘patriotism’ then you had better get your moral and ethical understanding in order. That war, and the wars that were waged as a result of the deceptions of 9/11 will destroy the Republic. I defy anyone to conter-argue this assertion.
The truth that is emerging — it will continue to emerge even if *you* continue to choose to remain in the lie — is that America will have to rectify itself and come to terms with itself: what it has done and what it is doing. Since the government will not, and perhaps cannot, do that, it is the necessary object of people within the polity to take this moral and ethical stance. How will a totally mystified people begin to do that?
Compounding events are driving this Nation along down the tube of social psychosis. If you do not know that this madness has always resulted in war you had better do some historical reading! These events seem to me managed by elites for their own purposes, and those purposes are not *my* purposes nor are they *our* purposes.
The Nation is now approaching a civil crisis but it cannot, or it does not, seem to understand where to direct its anger, the sense of having been betrayed. Who did this? Who has brought this about? The roots of that betrayal go back 100 years and *betrayal* is written into the script of the imperious nation.
Deal with that … or watch (and participate!) in the final destruction of the Republic. It is unraveling before your eyes. And it has causes and the causes can be named.
Shaun King, the male Rachel Dolezal, recently tweeted about Kaepernick’s “Brilliantly articulated” points. And I wonder if I’ve gone insane. I mean, facially, that seems just as absurd as anything president Trump has tweeted since November. Covfefe made more sense. Part of the reason why people aren’t identifying with Kaepernick’s message is because it’s incoherent. But intelligible is articulate, justice is injustice, and violence is peaceful, right?
Part of the reason why people aren’t identifying with Kaepernick’s message is because it’s incoherent.
Which people?
The majority in the middle. Look, there’s people who are politically minded, there are people who are politically minded and like football, and then there are people who just like football.
And it’s that third group that’s important. They’ll tolerate player dressing up in pink for October, because breast cancer is fairly well understood, the benefits in donations are tangibly connected, and who doesn’t like a pair of stonking great tits? But if you tell them with all the clarity of a Charlie Brown adult “womp womp womp womp kneel, womp womp BLM womp womp Fuck the flag” they’re going to lose patience with you. I think sooner than later.
From the polls I can find, most Americans do not support Kaepernick’s anthem protest, but I’m not sure that means a majority “aren’t identifying with his message;” they could just think it’s an inappropriate venue or method of protest. It’s also important to note that a majority do not support firing players over this, either:
https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-61-oppose-firing-nfl-players-who-refuse-stand-national-anthem-65-republicans-say-players
But if you tell them with all the clarity of a Charlie Brown adult “womp womp womp womp kneel, womp womp BLM womp womp Fuck the flag” they’re going to lose patience with you. I
Come on. You’re being intentionally disingenuous. You could do “womp womp” your way through literally any cause if you don’t support it. This just makes you look like you’re not listening.
Which “message”? That officers accused in police-involved shootings should be suspended without pay before an investigation and finding of guilt? Do YOU support that message?
You’re confusing supporting details with main ideas. That’s a detail, and no, I don’t support that. I do support the message, which is that blacks should be treated equally under the law, especially by the police. But no, I don’t support every single thing that every activist says we need to do in support of that message.
My point is that this is what Kaepernick cited as one of the few actual details of his protest statement.
Yes, I know. One can identify with the main message and not all the details.
What’s the main message once you distill out precisely what Kaepernick made the message about?
““aren’t identifying with his message;” they could just think it’s an inappropriate venue or method of protest.”
I mean… The form of protest is PART of the message. If it weren’t he could have phoned in his activism from home. If people are failing to get on board because the method of delivery was too toxic, then that’s a failure to connect with the message. I mean… If people thought that the message would have been better receiving with some other form of protest, then the other people who agree with the message now should be irate with Kaepernick for treating such an important theory so ham-fistedly. Meanwhile… You have significant chunks of progressive infrastructure dedicated to nothing but supplying Kaepernick with a job.
“Come on. You’re being intentionally disingenuous. You could do “womp womp” your way through literally any cause if you don’t support it. This just makes you look like you’re not listening.”
I mean… I actually think that you’re not listening. I think you’ve given Kaepernick the Obama treatment in that you’ve taken a person and attributed all the best possible arguments to him, even though he hasn’t said any of them. In fact, he’s used some of the worst.
I mean… Prove me wrong. Cite his argument in his words, give him the best representation possible using only his words.
These are good points. I’ll have to consider them further before arguing with them.
Covfefe made more sense.
You owe me a keyboard.
It’s been mentioned here, and mentioned favorably, that American culture hosts a powerful contrarian streak. It leads many Americans, when an authority figure tries to exercise authority they see as inappropriate, to bridle back with a vehement “no, fuck YOU” simply because they don’t like being told what to do.
I wonder how many of yesterday’s protesting players don’t really care much about the Anthem or about Kaepernick’s protest, but the president blustering in to say they should be fired stuck in their teeth and gave rise to a widespread moment of “Oh, you want to call us sons of bitches and say we should be fired when we do THIS? Do you not like THIS?”
Coherent? Well-articulated? Effective? Responsible? Hard to say, although I lean towards “no” on all counts. But I can certainly emphasize with the reaction to do something just because you were ordered not to by someone without that authority.
Another of my favorite commercials, which seems apt:
I can EMPATHIZE with the reaction, rather. It has been thoroughly emphasized by the media. 😀
Absolutely right, and I love that about Americans. It is also the primary reason Trump was elected.
It’s also a secondary reason why the NFL protests are causing viewers to abandon the games. People are tired of being told what to think by celebrities, athletes, singers, etc. They are particularly tired of hearing only one message from them, and arguments to shut down all others. I fully support the right of the NFL to allow the protests, but I also agree with the fans who are revolted by it.
I don’t watch the NFL, so I could care less if the league burns to the ground (if that’s selfish, I don’t give a crap). When I was a kid, I loved it. When I was a young adult, I liked it. When I became a mature adult, I found it disinteresting. When I became still older, I began to hate all the domestic abuse, arrests, and wagon-circling by the players and indifference to serious injury caused by playing. Now, I frankly loath it and would applaud it’s soonest demise. Better late than never, they say.
The interesting question is this: If the NFL were to cease as a going concern and nothing was able to replace it, what would become of the college athletes who have dreams of professional football after college? It would certainly motivate them to finish their education, because there’d be no percentage in leaving early. This seems to me to be an unalloyed good, but it would also reduce the number of African-American millionaires significantly, and the number of people with a chance to go to college on a football scholarship slightly.
So does that make it racist to wish for the NFL’s demise?
No. The vast majority of talented black kids who get a college scholarship get injured in college or are otherwise flushed out and sent back to wherever they came from well short of a degree. The vast majority of black guys who make it to the NFL get injured or washed out of the NFL. [How’s this little spinning nugget: “According to the NFL Players Association the average career length is about 3.3 years. The NFL claims that the average career is about 6 years (for players who make a club’s opening day roster in their rookie season).”] So some guys have long careers or get a few years of big pay Then most of them lose the money. [This from SI: According to a 2009 Sports Illustrated article, 78% of National Football League (NFL) players are either bankrupt or are under financial stress within two years of retirement.]
So no, pro sports is not the way to go. Kids would be better off just getting financial aid or an academic scholarship or even Pell Grants and getting a degree. Pro sports is a crap shoot that, even if you win, you’ll probably lose. But then the white guys in charge of college and pro football would have to go back to selling cars or insurance or whatever they were doing before they fell upon the pro sports scam.
That’s changing now at many universities. A growing number are offering 4-year scholarships rather than the old renewable one-year ones, allowing injured players to finish school. It’s not all magnanimity, to be sure, but welcome nonetheless.
As time goes on, probably everybody will have to do it to remain competitive.
Thank you Jack.
I have been greatly anticipating your blog today. I couldn’t stomach reading any more of the usual fare from the traditional outlets. The best article, so far, is the Wall Street Journal that you quoted. I just needed to read your clear points to strip out the nonsense that obfuscates the real point. The hyper politicization of everything is ruining our ability as humans to conduct civil dialogue on almost any issue. I feel that people are moving from having a healthy debate to purely trying to create the latest sound bite or hashtag. It is becoming a very sad culture.
I’m also getting frustrated with that back and forth of “You should respect the flag because people died to provide you with the freedoms you have” being met with “What are you bitching about? I’m just using that freedom.”
Yes… You have that freedom. It just takes a special kind of petulance to actually acknowledge the benefits that flag represents, and still choose to disrespect it. It showcases a lack of gratitude, a fundamental lack of appreciation of what America stands for. And so, yeah, while you have the right to be a stupid asshole, I don’t think you can be particularly stunned when people refer to you as ungrateful assholes, nor be particularly gobsmacked when it has employment repercussions.
As the left is so fond of saying: Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from repercussions. Our repercussions just involves less violence.
Why do you believe kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful to the flag?
Oh Chris. Come on. Don’t make yourself look silly.
Here’s a young, doubtlessly hip, black woman who gets paid to write at the New Yorker. And even she can’t figure out what it means.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/what-will-taking-the-knee-mean-now
And you seriously don’t think anyone could find the kneeling disrespectful?
No, of course I think people could find the kneeling disrespectful. I was asking why HT believed that.
Why?
Chris wrote, “Why do you believe kneeling during the national anthem is disrespectful to the flag?”
That is a question that only a trollwould ask.
I mean… The flag is there… on the field… at the same time.
Are you confused about the connection or the kneeling, in and of itself? I mean… If the kneeling were deferential, you could argue it was honoring the flag, although that’s kind of anathemical to the idea of the flag.
But that’s not really important. The point is that the players set the terms… It’s disrespectful because they intend to be disrespectful. Are you really arguing that they aren’t?
Yes, I don’t think they’re intending to be disrespectful. Questioning? Doubtful? Ambivalent? Yes. But not disrespectful.
If that’s the case, they are being incapacitatingly naive thinking that the message lines up with the intent. Because the message clearly communicates disrespect.
And there’s enough reason to assume that the protestors know that at this point.
Yet there they are.
sports should not be made a party to the current progressive indoctrination strategy of making everything in American life a political lecture
I agree, which is why the National Anthem should not be played at sporting events.
Nobody pays to go to sporting events to see continuations of the political disputes and debates they watch sports to avoid. Sports is entertainment, and entertainment is escapism.
I agree, which is why the National Anthem should not be played at sporting events.
It’s a useful distinction, and there is no question that the President, as misguided and inappropriate as his remarks were, wins the argument with the many, many millions who just want to watch their favorite teams without being bombarded by political bombast and grandstanding.
I agree, which is why the National Anthem should not be played at sporting events. (And was Trump’s statement not political bombast and grandstanding?
Players are welcome to have political views and to take part in demonstrations and other activism, but not while wearing their uniforms, and not on the field.
I agree, which is why players should not be forced to take part in a political demonstration during sporting events.
Yesterday, over a hundred NFL players “took a knee” during the National Anthem to protest…something…as the news media cheered them on.
It was very clear to me what they were protesting; you describe it here:
The US doesn’t need any more division now, and Trump’s crude outburst was indefensible. Presidents should not comment negatively on the conduct of citizens when they are acting within their Constitutional rights. Nor should they interfere with the policies and disciplinary decisions of private businesses
That’s what they’re protesting. It’s what I would be doing too. I’ve said before that I think flag burning is idiotic, but if Trump followed through on his threats to make flag burning illegal, I would become a flag burner. There may not have been a specific threat here, but the principle is the same. If Trump calls people who take a knee during the national anthem “sons of bitches,” then let me be a son of a bitch.
I am certain he did not; we know by now that Trump just blurts stuff out without considering consequences of any kind.
All the more reason there should be consequences for this.
which he did, and which President Obama also did when he endorsed and defended Kaepernick’s stunt last year.
This is not even true. Obama defended Kaepernick’s right to protest, and explained his reasoning. But he did not endorse his protest, and also said this:
“I think that it’s also important for us to recognize that sometimes out of these controversies, we start getting into a conversation, and I want everybody to listen to each other. So I want Mr. Kaepernick and others who are on a knee, I want them to listen to the pain that that may cause somebody who, for example, had a spouse or a child who was killed in combat, and why it hurts them to see somebody not standing. But I also want people to think about the pain that he may be expressing about somebody who’s lost a loved one that they think was unfairly shot.”
What? You hate it that showing disrespect to the flag and the national anthem and following the example of a man who said that he couldn’t honor a nation that “oppressed” blacks is seen as disrespect for the flag, our institutions, and the soldiers who fought to preserve that nation you have so much contempt for?
This is deeply unfair. The argument is that our country is not living up to the ideals that the flag stands for. That is not disrespectful toward the flag, and invoking veterans (plenty of whom support Kaepernick’s protest) is pure emotional manipulation.
If you just want to to “send a message of unity and being together,” why not just hold hands and hug?
Because Trump did not call players sons of bitches for holding hands and hugging. He called them sons of bitches for kneeling during the national anthem. So….the best way to show unity with the teammates he targeted is to kneel during the national anthem. Obviously.
Why is refusing to stand for the anthem appropriate?
Why is it inappropriate?
If spectators and fans have to be subjected to this non-sports spectacle,
They are already subjected to a non-sports spectacle: the National Anthem.
shouldn’t the message the players are sending be clear and productive?
It’s perfectly clear to me. You don’t want to understand it.
We want our sporting events, broadcast to the world, to feature on-field demonstrations against the Presidency?
That is irresponsible, self-destructive and insane.
As long as the President continues to use his platform to demonstrate against private citizens engaged in peaceful, silent protest, private citizens have not only the right but the ethical duty to defend each other from his unprovoked and un-American attacks. Failing to do so would be unethical.
If Mr Trump said to get out of a burning building, I fear people have gotten so outraged, they would not listen.
The election was lost. I have disliked the President since Johnny Carson made him a target on the Tonight Show. But I dislike most Presidents when they enter the office. And you know, they never are quite as bad as I feared, and some I liked ended up being terrible. And we have to count on the other institutions to do their jobs until 2020. And suck it up and look for a better candidate who can appeal to the normal citizen who is getting tired of the rage and wants to work, watch a game, and take their kids to see fireworks.
If Mr Trump said to get out of a burning building, I fear people have gotten so outraged, they would not listen.
Why would you compare the president calling a citizen a son of a bitch to the president telling people to get out of a burning building?
Are we really at the point where the president calling a citizen a son of a bitch is considered trivial and not worthy of outrage? And can we afford three and a half more years of what that does to our culture?
This is, of course, where the anti-American left loses, and has lost since the Sixties. Showing honor to the past, the nation, it’s traditions and institutions is not political. Patriotism isn’t political. National pride isn’t political. The flag and the National Anthem aren’t political. \
The argument that there is anything wrong with a tradition of honoring the nation before sporting events is political, and divisive.
Comment of the Day, though.
I’ll wait for the post to reply… But we really do seem to be living in the time of two Americas.
One America, and one anti-America. That’s not fair, but it’s how it plays.
Refusing to stand for the anthem or salute the flag isn’t anti-America.
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/article172009742.html
“Refusing to stand for the anthem or salute the flag isn’t anti-America.”
Only on the oh-so-sophisticated coasts and blue cities. The deplorables think otherwise, and saying it don’t make it so.
Thanks for the honor. I disagree, though. National pride is always political. Forcing someone to express national pride, even more so.
Who is doing the forcing?
Trump’s argument is that employers should force employees to stand for the national anthem.
Chris wrote, “Trump’s argument is that employers should force employees to stand for the national anthem.”
…and in response, you think we should strip the National Anthem. This thought process is nonsense!
One employer tried to force the employees not to participate in the National Anthem; so you tell me Mr. Chris, which reaction to this kneeling protest nonsense is worse, the President stating what you said or the employer actually trying to force their employees to do something against their will? That X-Army Ranger said it best with his physical action by standing against irrational anti-patriotism.
The National Anthem has become a prop for the SJW, when that and the flag it’s be banned because of some illogical bull shit from these SJW imbeciles?
No, I’ve long thought the national anthem shouldn’t be played during sporting events.
Who was this employer who tried to force employees not to participate? I find that just as bad as forcing them to participate. If the national anthem is performed, it should be up to the employee whether or not to stand at attention for it. Their right to engage is just as strong as anyone else’s right not to engage.
Chris wrote, “No, I’ve long thought the national anthem shouldn’t be played during sporting events.”
Why?
Chris wrote, “Who was this employer who tried to force employees not to participate?”
Steelers.
I used the word forced liberally in this due to the reaction of the coach afterwards when he said, “I was looking for 100 percent participation”, when your boss says something like that there is coercion involved thus my usage of the word forced.
The words from President Trump forced nothing upon the NFL.
“The words from President Trump forced nothing upon the NFL.”
He had no business saying what he said, he had a good reason to discuss the virtues and values behind Pro-American principles related to this inanity, but his specific words and message were not Presidential business, in the same way that the incompetent Governor of Virginia had no business saying the specific things he said *the way he said them* regarding the Charlottesville protest, even though, as Governor, he had every business to speak to the pro-America *values and virtues* related to the topic.
Sure, tex, I agree with all that.
Were the reasons I compared the actions of Steelers coach to Trump’s words unclear?
Yes, I agree that is coercion, and unethical, Zoltar.
Chris is an internationalist. He’d rather be governed by the UN General Assembly. Here’s his national anthem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9BNoNFKCBI
How dare you. Our (inter)national anthem is this:
I’ll accept your apology in the form of a check made out to George Soros.
You mean it’s not this?
These Coca Cola singers cut from the same cloth as “Children of the Corn?”
I almost went with the Coke commercial!
Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
Or this?
That snippet attributed to Gary Hart could be construed as racist.
This is the “signature Obama” video I recall (I even thought he sang it!):
Or maybe it was the full-length version…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAtIZafyeHI
Chris wrote, “I agree, which is why the National Anthem should not be played at sporting events.”
Some ignorant people have chosen to make the national anthem a controversial prop in their illogical social justice plan to destroy the country, so naturally you think that we should appease this nonsense scrap that which was once unifying and make it more divisive because of a hand full of idiots? Let’s ban anything you and SJW clan of idiots find offensive. You’ve just gotta love this kind of ignorant thinking.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Martin Niemöller
I did not suggest “banning” anything, dummy.
Chris,
I know comprehension is really not your strong point, but try rereading.
Quick question: How are fellow commenters supposed to understand you words “the National Anthem should not be played at sporting events” other than you think it should be banned without using the word ban.
“Let’s not do this anymore” isn’t a ban. When shows stop using their old theme song, no one says the old them song is “banned.” I’m not asking for a rule making it NFL policy to never play the national anthem again. I just don’t think it’s necessary, and in these times, creates more problems than it solves.
Chris wrote, ” ‘Let’s not do this anymore’ isn’t a ban.”
Another intellectually dishonest moving of the goalposts.
“The National Anthem should not be played at sporting events” is not equivalent to “let’s not do this anymore”; any competent English teacher could tell the difference. I’m really tired of your nonsense “teacher”; you don’t even comprehend your own words much less what others write and you regularly misrepresent yourself when contradictory evidence is staring you and everyone else in the face.
Even though I’m positive you’re routine intellectually dishonest moving of the goalposts is one of your trolling habits, it’s still infuriating.
In the arena of sports, there is a pattern.
The Dallas Cowboys wanted to honor fallen cops. The NFL said no. But the St. Louis Rams could do the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture.
Tim Tebow was attacked for kneeling to pray after games. Remember Tebowing? Goodell was silent. But Kaepernick is cool.
The Titans linebacker, along with Odell Beckham and Victor Cruz, got told that they’d be fined for 9/11 cleats. But “Black Power” salutes are OK.
At ESPN, Curt Schilling got fired for talking politics, but Jemile Hill got a pass.
That pattern is a double standard, and a lot of us who ended up voting for Donald Trump are friggin’ sick of it. And that double standard pervades a lot.
When Masterpiece Cakeshop is threatened with fines for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding but Acuzar bakery is given a pass for refusing to provide a cake enscribed with Leviticus 18:23, people notice.
It’s OK to demand Brendan Eich be fired for his Prop 8 donation, or a Gallaudet administrator to be demoted for merely signing a petition to put same-sex marriage to a referendum, but when Trump says someone ought to be fired and gets criticism for that, it gets noted, too.
Remember when Richard Spencer was the victim of harassment at a gym, and then the gym kicked him out, as opposed to the harasser? Imagine if it had been Ta-Nehisi Coates who was harassed at a gym and then kicked out (quite frankly, I think Spencer and Coates are both cancerous and both promote racial division). The folks celebrating Spencer’s boot from a gym would be up in arms.
We just want a fair debating field. If the progressive left get to call normals like me names, and vilify us, then I want to return fire. They want to try to get me fired, then turnabout is fair play. I’m tired of taking the abuse of my tolerance, kindness, and goodwill. If they’re civil with me, fine.
But nothing I have seen indicates that Kurt Schlichter is wrong about the situation as he described it back in February. At some point, that hatred will have a counter-effect, and it may already be doing so now.
These constant double standards are a big reason we got President Donald Trump, and if they continue… well, he’ll win again in 2020.
I’d rather this be a comment of the day as opposed to Chris’s.
There’s room for both, no?
Well, Hitler did win Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year Award,” didn’t he.
That made me laugh, and I’m not even sure I got the joke.
I’m Hitler, right?
Jack awards COTDs for comments that stir up controversy, regardless of whether they make any sense, just as Time always preens by making controversial figures men of the year as often as possible to create attention.
I understood what Other Bill was getting at and it had nothing to do with calling you Hitler.
His explanation clarifies things for me. I get it now.
“At some point, that hatred will have a counter-effect, and it may already be doing so now.”
Welcome to my world. Cookies are on the table in the back, prozac in the little bowl beside the podium, and we have an wet bar on the deck. 🙂
Just what I have been saying. Common Americans (‘normals?’) are noticing the double standard, and the push back will use the perverted Golden Rule
I agree with Trump. These entitled bastards should be fired. Their behavior has nothing to do with with free speech: If they want to make a protest statement do it outside the football stadium and don’t subject the fans of their team to this crap!!
If you believe an employee should be fired for not agreeing to be compelled by their employer to engage in political speech, please don’t pretend to be in favor of free speech again.
This has been litigated. It’s not political speech, and an employer has a right to insist that the employee follows team policies on the field. Private companies can also require employees to toe whatever line it chooses on public and when representing the team.
Chris is a lefty, Jack. so his opinions on the Constitution are always correct.
Can you point to the court cases that have dealt with this issue? (This isn’t meant to be rhetorical or snarky; I’m genuinely uninformed on this.)
It will take some time. The most famous one was the NBA player who was required to stand or be suspended.
http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/18686629/before-colin-kaepernick-protested-national-anthem-nba-star-mahmoud-abdul-rauf-did-same-own-way
They are certain things that are supposed to unite us. Thanksgiving, the National Anthem, Pledge, America the Beautiful all come to mind. Should they out of respect and common sense be considered off limits? This is not about creating a “national debate” but about creating further division.
You will recall that Obama directly called for his minions to turn holiday dinners into propaganda for the ACA….
Wasn’t that some dean at your wonderful Alma Mater?
But I for one am tired of being told we “need to have a conversation” about this or about that. I’d say we need less conversation and more people getting a job or getting an education or otherwise bettering themselves instead of bitching about how unfair America is.
Bitching about people bitching about how unfair America is is a much better use of time.
I’m retired, Chris. My wife and I have made enough money to take care of ourselves and our kids and grandkids for the rest of all our lives. Fuck you.
You snot nosed little shit.
Jeeeez..THAT escalated quickly.
Time out.
Other Bill for the win. The left so often talks about speaking truth to power. Let’s see how they respond to the right speaking truth to assholery.
Ouch
Interesting back-story about why Miami passed him over (and this is where it gets good!) in favor of the irrepressible Jay Cutler.
http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article117033883.html
C’mon; the Fish prefer to haul Cryin’ Jay, noted PRICK extraordinaire and future inductee to the TitleTown’s 13 Time World Champion Green Bay Packer (GO PACKERS!!) HOF, (based on a nearly perfect record against them as a woeful Bi-Polar bare) off the scrap heap?
Whoa Nellie THAT’S gotta sting!
With personal experience to back it up, Salguero really nails CK’s keester to the wall, and Kaepernick wasn’t/isn’t verbally or intellectually dexterous enough to duck-n-parry.
CK, decrying oppression while sporting a Malcolm X & Oppressor par excellence (Fidel Castro) emblazoned TShirt:
“One thing Fidel Castro did do is they have the highest literacy rate because they invest more in their education system than they do in their prison system, which we do not do here even though we’re fully capable of doing that,”
Armando Salguero: “First, Cuba does not have the highest literacy rate. Second, don’t be surprised if the same people who report Cuba’s admittedly high literacy rate are related to those who report its election results — the ones in which the Castros get 100 percent of the votes.
“Third, could it be Cuba doesn’t have to invest a lot in its prison system because, you know, dungeons and firing squads (El Paredon) are not too expensive to maintain?
“Finally, it’s bizarre that Kaepernick is extolling the education system of a country where people believe launching out into shark-infested seas to flee is a better idea than staying there.”
Luke G’s fine phraseology above sums it up perfectly:
” ‘Coherent? Well-articulated? Effective? Responsible? Hard to say, although I lean towards ‘no’ on all counts.’ ”
Nothing like a Cuban refugee to appreciate the US. I wish CK would go to Cuba to cut sugar cane.
Thanks for the post Jack. I’m looking forward to Part II. I have often felt that I wasted too much of my leisure time following sports. To that extent this weekend was a freeing experience. Pro football is now out for me, followed, I expect soon, by the NBA. I see one player from the Oakland A’s took the knee, and if and when MLB goes, I may be left with hockey. I went through a similar weaning process with theater, when new plays and interpretations of old ones, started to wear me down with their identity politics: I stopped going. Now I read more, listen to and follow more music (especially classical & jazz), take more exercise, go to museums, watch movies, and enjoy the quiet time alone or with family & friends. I expect to do more of the same, appreciative of the good entertainment ride I’ve had over the decades.
Just for the record, a friend sent me the rules of conduct for players:
“The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the NFL League Rulebook. It states: ‘The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. ‘During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition… …It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.’
I’d say some fines & loss of draft picks are in order.
Does anyone remember that Kapernick was fined in 2014 for using a racial slur? Does anyone care? Should we care? For example, I find it hard to listen to Alec Baldwin talk about gay rights when his go to insult is a gay slur.
Not quite:
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/10/15/6985459/colin-kaepernick-fined-racial-slur-nfl-nflpa-49ers
Not quite what? The article repeatedly said that he was fined for using a racial slur. Maybe he didn’t, or maybe there wasn’t sufficient evidence, or maybe the NFL later back tracked, but that was the reason given for the fine.
It’s hard to listen to Alec Baldwin anyway.
Jack wrote: “On Sunday’s talking head shows, some apologists for this nonsense claimed it was the Anthem itself, because the third verse that nobody sings or considers part of the anthem contains ambiguous lyrics that race-baiters have claimed endorse slavery.”
WHAT?! Ambiguous? Maybe vaguely cis-ambiguous…
Meaning of Star Spangled Banner Lyrics Verse 3
Source: http://www.american-historama.org/1801-1828-evolution/star-spangled-banner-lyrics.htm
● Francis Scott Key describes the British as arrogant and boastful in the lyrics ‘that band who so vauntingly swore’
● He is venting his anger at the British with the “foul footsteps’ pollution” lyrics inferring that the British poisoned the ground on which they walked
● But the poison and corruption had been washed away by the blood of the British
● The Star Spangled Banner lyrics “the hireling ” refers to the British use of Mercenaries (German Hessians) in the American War of Independence
● The Star Spangled Banner lyrics “…and slave” is a direct reference to the British practice of Impressment (kidnapping American seamen and forcing them into service on British man-of war ships). This was a Important cause of the War of 1812
● Francis Scott Key then describes the Star Spangled Banner as a symbol of triumph over all adversity