Kaepernick and the National Anthem

[4merper4mer]

 

I, for one, am looking forward to see what sort of social justice platform is created by the same people that can't successfully define "catch."

 

 

I'm guessing it is one that does whatever benefits Tom Brady the most.

[DC Tom]

 

Writing at the site of Center of the American Experiment, John Hinderaker quotes my friend and former colleague Teresa Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. As is her wont, Professor Collett is trying to do some teaching in a teachable moment. She explains:

 

I dont watch football. I dont care about football. But I do care about constitutional literacy. Please stop saying football players have first amendment rights to disregard the direction of their private employers while engaged in privately sponsored activities which is what NFL football games are. They have no more constitutional protection for their expressive activities than I do for mine at my private Catholic university. Any rights they have are based on their contracts and employment law.

 

On the one hand, we have Professor Collett teaching something true about the scope of our Fist Amendment speech rights. On the other hand, we have Star Tribune sportswriter Michael Rand triumphantly declaiming:

 

A gameday manual can say what it wants. So can a president, for that matter. At the end of the day, were still back to the First Amendment the trump card, so to speak which carries just a little more sway than a logistical document or a tweet.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free speech leads to uncomfortable conversations ones that Rodgers, correctly, says we need to be having. Debating whether a league rule means players shouldnt be able to start that conversation probably means you dont want to have that conversation.

Enough false flags. The real one is too important.

The First Amendment protects Michael Rands right to display his ignorance and make a fool of himself in the pages of the Star Tribune. One might learn that Rand therefore needs someone to protect him from himself. (Editors?) Or one might learn you cant believe everything you read in the Star Tribune.

Reminder: these are the same people who think the First Amendment shouldn't apply to racists.

[HappyDays]

Report back for the Bills/Jets ratings. I'm sure that will attract as many viewers.

But this is the point, when the ratings decline it's because the game isn't interesting. Very very few people are going to not tune into a game just because of the protests. This is pretty much what I expected. I would wager at least 50% of people online who said they would boycott the NFL have already watched a game since they said that. That's how people are. They get really angry for a week then lose interest.

[26CornerBlitz]

 

I, for one, am looking forward to see what sort of social justice platform is created by the same people that can't successfully define "catch."

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Bye now!

Oh, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just going to "take a knee" when it comes to financially supporting a pack of liars and race pimps.

 

I'll be vocal about why they aren't getting my money any more.

 

And the NFL will go the way of Mizzou if they don't get the message.

[26CornerBlitz]

FWIW

 

@FiveThirtyEight

How every NFL team's fans lean politically: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-every-nfl-teams-fans-lean-politically/

 

[DC Tom]

But this is the point, when the ratings decline it's because the game isn't interesting. Very very few people are going to not tune into a game just because of the protests. This is pretty much what I expected. I would wager at least 50% of people online who said they would boycott the NFL have already watched a game since they said that. That's how people are. They get really angry for a week then lose interest.

I've pretty much tuned out.

 

But not because of the "protests," as much as the batshit insane coverage of them.

FWIW

 

@FiveThirtyEight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How every NFL team's fans lean politically: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-every-nfl-teams-fans-lean-politically/

 

 

Yeah...they're associated with major metropolitan areas, which largely lean Democrat.

 

This is not news. It's not even informative. A glance at a county-by-county electoral map would have told you as much.

[B-Man]

Reminder: these are the same people who think the First Amendment shouldn't apply to racists.

 

Too true sir.

 

 

 

BLOWBACK: NFL protester says father has lost work because of it.

Lions defensive linemen Akeem Spence tweeted Thursday that a contractor denied his father work on a house because of his protests.

There were eight Lions players who kneeled during the anthem on Sunday, and Spence was one of them. After the game, he explained his actions as every protester has when asked — that it is not about the flag or the anthem or disrespecting the military, but rather to raise awareness for racial inequality in America.

“No disrespect to the flag, no disrespect to any of the veterans or anything,” Spence told ESPN after the Lions’ 30-26 loss to the Falcons. “It was just right is right, wrong is wrong, and what the guy said about us as NFL players, I just feel like that’s something that’s us, as NFL players, we have to stand up for that’s not what we are. You know what I’m saying. We’re human beings. We give back to the community.

“We do great things, and our owners, you know what I’m saying, they do great things. So that’s something we don’t represent around the NFL. That’s something every team should have come out and showed this Sunday, that it’s not what that guy said about us.”

 

 

 

 

It’s impossible to tell from his statement exactly what Spence thought he was protesting or supporting by taking a knee, but it is clear that he fails to understand that freedom of expression is a two-way street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quick Reminder: Colin Kaepernick’s original statement:

 

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Yep. I recently did a ton of research on it. All of the big guns wanted to abolish slavery in the Declaration. But they eventually decided they couldn't get the southern colonies to agree to it so they took out that request. Which made it harder to understand why Jefferson and Washington kept owning slaves for years after. Jefferson especially was a really interesting but complex and strange guy.

Lying sack of excrement?

 

@tanehisicoates

OK. I'm reloaded.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/29/we-should-have-seen-trump-coming

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

 

@tanehisicoates

OK. I'm reloaded.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/29/we-should-have-seen-trump-coming

 

That's some racist **** right there.

Edited September 29, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[26CornerBlitz]

 

 

 

That's some racist **** right there.

 

 

That truth serum doesn't go down easily for you I see.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

That's some racist **** right there.

 

 

 

No, no

 

a quick glance at the authors published articles show how well-rounded his subjects are..............

 

• "Fear of a Black President".
• "The Case for Reparations". The Atlantic. June 2014.
• "There Is No Post-Racial America". The Atlantic. July/August 2015.
• "The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration". The Atlantic. October 2015.
• "My President Was Black". The Atlantic. December 2016.

[DC Tom]

 

 

 

No, no

 

a quick glance at the authors published articles show how well-rounded his subjects are..............

 

• "Fear of a Black President".
• "The Case for Reparations". The Atlantic. June 2014.
• "There Is No Post-Racial America". The Atlantic. July/August 2015.
• "The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration". The Atlantic. October 2015.
• "My President Was Black". The Atlantic. December 2016.

 

 

I've read some other of Ta-Nehesi Coates' articles before. He's...rather nuts.

[reddogblitz]

@RapSheet

 

NFLs Joe Lockhart said the players meeting with Goodell renewed urgency for a platform for players to express views on social issues.

 

Have they heard of Twitter?

Edited September 29, 2017 by reddogblitz

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

That truth serum doesn't go down easily for you I see.

So black racism is truth?

[row_33]

 

I've read some other of Ta-Nehesi Coates' articles before. He's...rather nuts.

 

the usual stuff you expect

[26CornerBlitz]

So black racism is truth?

 

Debunk what he wrote instead of giving it a weak label.

[row_33]

 

Debunk what he wrote instead of giving it a weak label.

 

who has the time

 

just the same griping about the world, which has some truth but can't help anyone

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Debunk what he wrote instead of giving it a weak label.

He's making a case, so it's his job to prove it out in his work. Instead he offers anecdotes and feelings in place of data and facts.

 

As far as the social value of his commentary, he's no different than anyone from the Alt-Right penning OpEds; which is to say he offers no value.

Edited September 29, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

He's making a case, so it's his job to prove it out in his work. Instead he offers anecdotes and feelings in place of data and facts.

 

[/Critical Race Theory]