#BoycottNFL? Don't Make Me Laugh!

Niner safety Eric Reid seen kneeling for the anthem with Colin Kaepernick, as he was last night for before the Niners-Rams game.

News flash from Monday, as reported on the goofy, alt-Right nutwhack site breitbart.com:

"More than 75 percent of football fans feel justified in boycotting the San Francisco 49ers over quarterback Colin Kaepernick's refusal to stand "

And this from the Palm Beach Post:

"Despite a groundswell among fans to stop supporting the Dolphins because of Sunday's protest during the national anthem, players remain steadfast in their desire to make their point They said they intended no disrespect. they mean no disrespect.

In a blog post on The Post's Daily Dolphin, receiver Kenny Stills was quoted as saying "it stinks and it hurts, I guess, that people want to feel the way they do, but let’s understand we’re doing what we think is right.”

“It’s more important to create a healthy dialogue,” said another protesting player, running back Arian Foster. It's possible more players could join the protest in the coming weeks, but Foster said he couldn't predict what might happen Sunday when Miami visits New England. There's a leaguewide text messaging group for players to address the issue, Stills said."

The furor continued after four Dolphins players knelt during the national anthem in Seattle, and in response, Kate Upton announced "This is unacceptable! You should be proud to be an American, especially on 9/11!"

------------------------

Then we beheld the vacuous eruptions from assorted politically correct Trumpie bloggers who just can't tolerate the "uprising" among some NFL players. Some of these bloggers and social media twits even denied any player support( for expression of rights)from the league - so they're actually calling for a boycott of the NFL. They claim the idiotic hashtag #BoycottNFL is now "trending".. Sorry, ain't buying it! And the only lot that would boycott NFL games doesn't watch them anyway. So it's kind of like a clique of hostile Vegetarians trying to boycott Omaha Steaks or Outback.

The truth is the NFL players are exercising their rights, and I emphasize here THEIR RIGHTS - not Kate Upton's, not Roger Goodell's, not Obama's and certainly not some PC -driven Trumpie's  who sees 1st amendment expression as an "uprising". As if wild vagabonds and NFL Huns were burning, looting and pillaging with impunity.  But this is the sort of hyperbolic rhetoric we've come to expect from Trump and his Klan.

But the funniest aspect is these highly sensitive, all of a sudden PC wingnuts going ape shit when they were the ones so ready to always call "PC" on the left.

First,  there is this  notion to call the NFL - its commissioner-   as well as ALL the players "Nazis" -because  small percentage (~ 0.15%) exercise their rights during the anthem. These Limbaugh lovers actually believe because the NFL adopts certain player standards for conduct it can also dictate how players behave during the national anthem (well, they can, but not if the behavior is an expression of sincere free speech under a constitutional amendment)  Btw, for their information, the adjective "national" is used for many organizations and sports, it is not intended to be taken literally as if the organization or sport must conform to a national standard or the expectation for the fulfillment of such.

The NFL knows that it already has many rigid rules for player game behavior,  infractions, as shown last night when the LA Rams' DE Aaron Donald was tossed out of the game for two unsportsmanlike conduct penalties.  It also has a rigid code of conduct for off field behavior as it demonstrated in  the Ray Rice case. Hence, by being OVERLY dictatorial for ALL behavior (including the anthem)  it risks a full-scale  player rebellion launched by the NFL Players union. And that could mean hundreds of millions smackeroos lost if there's a player's strike such as in 1982.

As Niners' safety Eric Reid put it in his recent interview with SI's Dan Patrick (Reid, btw, knelt with Kaepernick during the anthem in SF last night):

"We are respectfully taking up this issue with the national anthem in order to raise awareness.  It's not meant to disrespect the military. We have the utmost respect for people who serve and put their lives on the line for this country We love this country so much we just want to make it better.".

  I also had to howl with laughter on reading from some fulminating bloggers  that "there are laws by God on how people must conduct themselves before the flag".  Totally forgetting, or never processing those legalities, e.g.  in a  congressional law (36 USC § 301)   now function as a legalistic formalism for patriotic organizations, and not applicable to individuals conducting an expression of free speech rights. Seems these PC wingnuts and regressed Reeptards never got the memo that another full branch of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court, overturned a congressional bid to outlaw flag burning in 1990 (United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).) 

It was that SC decision, indeed, that basically stood 36 USC § 301 on its head, allowing the first amendment provision to use the flag as free speech totem - like it or not.

The failure to acknowledge this 1st amendment right is difficult to believe, and yet if anyone remotely suggested these yahoos turn in all their AR-15s or Glocks to show respect for the 22  dead kids at Sandy Hook, they'd all go ape shit and bark how "our rights is bein' violated!"  Well yeah, Bud, but see those are your rights so how about respecting the FIRST amendment rights of others?

As for the "fans"  yelping about the four Dolphin players who knelt Sunday, that's a real hoot if ever there was one. As Christian Christensen pointed out in his blog Sunday on smirkingchimp:

"When the national anthem is playing at stadiums, fans don’t immediately drop what they are doing and stand to attention. Many unsubtly check their phones. Many are out buying hot dogs and beer (and don’t flinch in the line when the song begins). Many use the anthem as a chance to go and take a leak before kickoff. So, what?"

So the same beer-soaked assholes who were calling Miami RB Arian Foster the N-word  because he knelt for the anthem in Seattle  undoubtedly were tugging on their brewskies instead of holding hands over hearts as the 36 USC § 301 idiocy dictated. Nor, I wager,  did they stop pissing in mid-stream, immediately hold hands over hearts and look toward the stadium flag for three minutes.

As I watched last night's Niners-Rams game and spotted the sea of fans totally into the game and committed to it - I realized there is NO fucking way in hell any significant number of them will  abandon the NFL to which they are addicted. This is irrespective of what beer talk spills out of their mouths, or the vapid mouths of extreme jingoistic Right wing bloggers, websites or talk show buffoons.

The NFL, worth over a hundred billion dollars a year (including in television network contracts),  is the biggest national sports venue, and the most loved and followed in this country. And if you doubt it you just have to walk to the local pub or restaurant on any given Sunday and see all the people decked out in their Broncos,  49ers,  Cowboys or Packers jerseys, and caps.  Thus, the hyper ventilating huff that "Americans have had it with the NFL" is just that, empty huff....maybe some puff.

You think they are going to boycott this sport which 125 million follow passionately and bleed with when they lose? Then you are either a forlorn dreamer or not an NFL football fan at all.  And in that case your calls for #Boycott NFL amount to meaningless drivel with about the same force as howling at an approaching  Cat 5 hurricane to try to stop its advance.

Avoid Trump Rallies IF You Believe In Free Speech

Protester Rekeem Jones shows the battered cheek he got after a hee-haw cornpone goon sucker -punched him for exercising his free speech rights at a Trump rally in NC.  (Right, the dumb hick who did it, John McGraw , who now is in jail)

The parade of violent events at Trump rallies reached a crescendo yesterday as news feeds showed a wild-eyed North Carolina hick in a cowboy hat sucker punching a black protester exercising his free speech rights. Not only did this cornpone maggot make  a mess of Rekeem Jones' face he also blabbered, like a true domestic terrorist,  “Next time we see him, we might have to kill him!”

The video images evoked scenes shown to me in 1978 by my now deceased German friend, Kurt Braun, from newsreels he compiled of the Nazi rampages in the 1930s.  E.g.

Some of the most violent scenes showed Hitler's Brownshirts, the S.A., wading into political demonstrations with sticks - beating Jews, socialists (real ones, not the faux national "socialists"), labor union members and communists. All targeted in assorted protests and beaten to a pulp by the Hitler thugs. As former Hitler Youth Kurt put it, "Germany must never descend to such depths again".  Maybe, but if he saw what was happening in America today he'd be retching his guts out.

The latest incident, with terror hick McGraw acting out his Id,  is only the latest of a string of vile assaults captured on video, including of Michelle Fields - a conservative reporter from Breitbart.com. So it appears Trump's goons are an indiscriminate bunch of tormentors.

But this latest broadcast mugging shows some Trumpies really have S.A. creds. The sickening spectacle,  caught-on-camera, was yet another example of free speech protesters and media members being manhandled at Trump rallies. The most egregious aspect is that it went down as cops were actually ejecting the 26-year-old Jones from the event. So, get this, Jones was being frog marched out and barely gets to the top of the stairs and the exits when he's coldcocked by the 78- year old wannabe tough guy, Trumpie loyalist.

What we have beheld - in these assorted violent beatings by the Trumpies,- encouraged by Trump himself ("Get him outta here! Punch him in the face! Kick him! Step on her head!") is their total intolerance for the free speech they supposedly hold dear (in every other situation where it suits them).  But this opposition should not surprise us because Trump himself has gone on the record vowing to shut down the presses - if he's elected- and they write anything "bad" about him.

As reported in a recent TIME article on him by David von Drehle (March 14, p. 36) Trump has no patience or tolerance for what he deems "dishonest" or "inaccurate" statements.  What is his solution?

"He would like to open up the laws on libel to protect people like himself"

Similar ideas percolated in Adolf Hitler's head after becoming Chancellor in 1932 and this led to the establishment of the Reich laws which permitted the arrest and detention of journalists and news reporters in Germany - including being sent to the camps- if they so much as wrote a single sentence critical of the Fuhrer.

Would Trump do this if President? We don't know but the current signs and portents are not encouraging. And even if he himself didn't pass specific anti-free speech laws, who is to say what his insane, unhinged supporters might do?  Form gangs and smash the windows of  local  TV stations and newspaper offices, a la Kristillnacht?

The most disturbing aspect of this latest attack is the way videos showed  the ponytailed McGraw, clad in a cowboy hat and black leather vest, sitting back down after cold-cocking the peaceful young black protester. This,  as his knuckle-dragging  seatmates congratulated him on the dirty blow.

Then, to add insult to injury, McGraw - later confronted over his action - spitting out that the guy "might need to be killed next time" and besides "he wasn't even an American".  HUH?

In fact, Jones was one of the few REAL Americans at the Crown Coliseum in Fayetteville NC  given he was actually invoking his first amendment rights. The anti-Americans, the faux Americans, were the yahoos like McGraw who felt it their bounden duty to shut a real citizen up and even waylay him

Welcome to the new Nazis, and if Trump is elected President, look for many more to come out of the wood work.

The 'White Flag' Kerfuffle - An Opportunity to Return to COMMON SENSE

Consider the white flags that were  flying over the Brooklyn Bridge and Americans' reactions.

While certain media outlets, as we've come to expect, have wallowed in hysteria and fear, like the New York Daily News bawling: "This time it's a flag, next time it will be a bomb" - most of the reactions to the bleached white American flags hung over the Brooklyn Bridge have  been more tempered.  Theorizing, of course,  is rampant as it would be expected to be after any strange occurrence, particularly involving a high profile location in a major U.S. city - that was previously attacked on 9/11.

But this is exactly why now is the time for reason and common sense to prevail, and not to allow reactionaries to dominate discussion. First, it's obvious it was no "terror" attack and anyone claiming so needs committing to a mental institution. From what it was not, theories then veer to what it was or meant. There are at least ten such theories now, including that "aliens set it up" - which again merits the loony bin for any who say so.

I already provided my own theory in the previous post but now the NYPD seems to be focused on "skateboarders, young men between 19 and 21". This would make the incident more in line with a random juvenile prank and no message would likely have been involved at all.  This would also eliminate the  "theory" that a bunch of disaffected "leftists" did it.  No, if the Left did it, they'd be sending a serious message as I pointed out a blog post earlier. In other words, the bleached flags would have plausibly telegraphed our nation's surrender to corporate governance and domination.

The Righties, for that matter, could also have done it and some theories put it on disaffected Tea Baggers, upset over Obama's latest moves - or non-moves (Despite the fact that a recent poll shows 65 percent of Americans absolutely want NO impeachment proceedings, as some in the GOP have been belching about)

Now, time for more common sense. Was there any flag "defacement" or desecration involved?  After all, these guys - whoever they were - bleached two American flags and then put them up.

Of course not, because the First Amendment regards all such manifestations as protected symbolic speech. So calling for these guys to be "hung" over the bridge on the basis of a flag prank is simply more hysteria.

Let's first admit logically that bleaching a flag and hanging it up is less offensive speech than actual flag burning. But in the case Texas v. Johnson (1989) flag burning was upheld as symbolic free speech which could not be curtailed under the 1st amendment.

In 1990 another conservative congress tried to pass a law to outlaw burning the flag but again it went down.  This was in the case United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).  While the Johnson decision only affected a Texas state law this decision was broader. . In the wake of the earlier decision, the federal government  had enacted a law that also prohibited flag burning. In order to try to get around constitutional challenges, that federal law prohibited all types of flag desecration, with the exception of burning and burying a worn-out flag, regardless of whether the action upset others.

The Supreme Court held that this law did not cure the constitutional defect and the same 7-3 majority from Johnson held that the law still impermissibly discriminated upon viewpoint and struck it down.

Common sense here also tells us that the SYMBOL of a nation cannot have more import or viability than the principles it is supposed to protect.  Nor have soldiers "fought and died for the flag".  No, you do not fight and die for a piece of fabric, you fight and die for the PRINCIPLES the flag stands for - all listed under the Bill of Rights (including free speech)

One hopes as this story progresses and the culprits are finally found and brought forward to face the consequences of their youthful indiscretion, the rest of our citizens keep their cool and don't allow their judgment to be derailed by emotions.
 

Now, as we approach 9/11 once more, common sense is perhaps the most crucial commodity needed, that is all too often in short supply. In terms of the treatment of American flags, let me paraphrase one justice's common sense take: "So long as you are burning YOUR own flag and not someone else's you are exercising your form of speech as protest."   Changing burning to "bleaching" and you have a parallel to the Brooklyn Bridge case.

Advice we'd all best follow before shooting from the hip!

 

 

AZ Senate Bill 1062 Is Endorsement of Hate - Not "Religous Liberty"!

As the kerfuffle continues over Arizona State Senate Bill 1062, the bill that would enable and allow businesses in the state not to serve gays, it becomes crystal clear there is NO "religious liberty" involved here. Rather, it is an endorsement of hate using the egregious cover of religious liberty. Defenders- invoking their Bibles of course, insist the law is "designed to protect religious freedom, especially for wedding photographers and bakeries."

Cathi Herrod, who helped craft the bill and heads the 'Center for Arizona Policy', blabbed on CBS Early Show this morning:

"What's at risk here is religious liberties. Whether or not our first amendment right to freely exercise our religious belief will continue to mean something in this country or whether we are now in a country that frankly is hostile to individual religious beliefs."

Which, of course, is semantic codswallop. It also sounds almost exactly like the excuse trotted out to deny women contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Remember that?  To refresh memories, it was when FOCUS - a Catholic University group - hired on the “Alliance Defending Freedom” - whose mouthpiece then yapped:

“Faith-based organizations should be free to live and operate according to the faith they teach and espouse. If the government can fine Christian ministries out of existence for keeping their faith there is no limit to what freedom they can take away.”

Of course, this was absolute nonsense. There was no attempt whatsoever to “fine Christian ministries out of existence” – only to have them adhere to the standards of all other employers in the public sphere. If then the Catholic Church operates as an employer in the public sphere – never mind it’s a religious institution – then it’s bound to adhere to public standards pertaining to the Affordable Care Act, which all other public employers at other institutions, corporations are also bound to accept.

In the case of the justified protests against AZ 1062, these are in recognition of the fact that businesses operating under state codes and laws cannot cherry pick which customers they will serve and which they won't.

National corporations are urging Jan Brewer - the AZ Governor - to do the right thing and veto this offal. Even Mitt Romney has chimed in and asked Brewer to use her veto. Even one time supporter Steve Pierce said that "we now need to kill it". He offered that the "perception now trumps reality" but the reality is if this hate law is passed (and it's being considered in other states too, e.g. Georgia) this country will be on its way to a similar outcome as the backward African countries (like Uganda ) that have passed laws to put gays away in prison for 14 years or more - as well as any family that protects them. Most African observers - including former Peace Corps volunteers who served there - believe this pot was stirred up by hateful evangelicals who preached this "was the right thing to do".

No, it's never "right" no matter who is the subject of the law. If the law, any law, is based on Biblical bunkum or bollocks then it's no law at all.  It's an exercise in religious hatred masquerading as justice, or a first amendment "right".

Brewer needs to do the right thing here, and if she doesn't pressure will be put on the NFL to move the Super Bowl from Arizona next year.

Verbally Assaulting Women Seeking Abortion Services is NOT Free Speech!

 As seen in the appended image, states across the nation have erected impediment after impediment to prevent women seeking abortions from accessing services. 

But even in those states (e.g. Mass. ) where legislative obstacles are relatively few, the  resident religious knuckle draggers aren't satisfied. They want no abortion "buffer zones" - i.e. where women can enter clinics free of hassling and verbal molestation.

Hence, a 77 year old Massachusetts harpy and religious fruitcake has taken a case to the Supreme Court, that she be permitted to "quietly engage women going for abortions, to talk them out of it". Make no mistake that this is not "quietly talking" it is forcefully pushing a religious view on women who are already in a psychologically  fragile state. In this sense, it is akin to psychological torture and molestation. Indeed, in many cases, women attempting to enter clinics are yelled at with shouts of "Don't kill that baby!" with the idiots not even aware that a fetus isn't a baby, or even a person.

The assorted chatter of some Supremes (Scalia, Alito, and Kagan)  broadcast last night makes one wonder how they will eventually vote. According to Scalia: "They (Christians) only wish to quietly talk to the women, and express their free speech rights."

He added that the Massachusetts- declared 35 foot buffer zone prevented this, because most of the women could get inside before the protestors even had a chance to see who they wanted to target.......errrrrr.......talk to.

It makes me wonder where the fuck Scalia was when good old Bush Junior had his henchmen erect two hundred foot distant (from Bush events)  "free speech zones" - whenever demonstrators wanted to protest one or more of his policies. Of course, Bush had good reason to establish such "free speech zones" given all his criminal actions, including validating torture at Guantanamo, "rendering" people to isolated torture outposts in Turkey, etc., and launching illegal, pre-emptive "wars".

But the point is, if those two hundred foot buffer zones for Bush could be viewed as within the law, then the thirty -five foot abortion buffer zones in Massachusetts certainly meets the legal standard too. If, on the other hand, the 35' buffers are deemed illegal, it means we can add one more unlawful act to the Bushies' list during their reign of terror. Because obviously those 200' free speech zones would have to be illegal in hindsight.

Let us also get clear what is "free speech" and what isn't.  Free speech is NOT oral terrorism! In this regard, I put the sort of fundie-Xtianoid yapping at women entering abortion clinics in the same category as evangelical "witnessing".  Aggressive proselytizing, in other words, or "witnessing", amounts to personal terrorism.  That is, psychological terror applied to the person, as opposed to say a city or blowing up an abortion clinic.

If it is terror then any fundie screaming bible quotes in my face as I go on my way deserves to get clocked. It's as simple as that. He is encroaching on my space, and in doing so attempting a psychological act of terror - so it is incumbent on me to stop him if he refuses to obey a direct order to back off.

I assert the same applies to those screaming their nonsense and "talk" at women entering an abortion clinic. In this sense, one must view Massachusetts' buffer law as a means to protect the anti-abortion fanatics from themselves - and likely from any woman who may have had enough and already be at the end of her tether.

As for Scalia's interpretation that the anti-abortionists are only engaged in "quiet talk", give me a break. If you are "quietly" telling a woman that she is about to "go to Hell" for her sin or  kill her "baby" you're still practicing oral terror. The level of decibels with which the message is delivered doesn't matter.  The objective is still to intimidate a citizen and harass her into complying with the religionist's bollocks.

The best course for the Supremes to take is to leave the Massachusetts abortion buffer zone law the way it is. Not to do so will be to invite retaliation by those subjected to localized terrorism.

Yes, you have a right to your speech, but your speech ends where my nose begins. If you violate that, then well......

Protecting Your Data And Files From the NSA Snoops

Now that the word is out that the NSA plans to try to shut down media outlets, and that likely includes certain blogs as well, people may wish to know how to muster some kind of defense against the indiscriminate mass spying – repeatedly justified as “necessary for our security” – but which any old spooker hack would use to try and frighten the weak-willed. But as Mother Jones (Nov.-Dec., p. 27) and other sources have reported, even Patriot Act co-author Jim Sensenbrenner was “Stunned at what the NSA had become.” The referenced article (‘Troll on the Hill’) is about how Republican Rep.Justin Amash tried his best (along with liberal Dem Rep John Conyers) to rein in these mutants – and he almost succeeded by the final vote, until the Obamanites brought heavy pressure to bear on any waverers.

Anyway, the latest news from the UK Guardian today is that the head of the embattled National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, is accusing journalists of "selling" his agency's documents” and is calling for an end to the steady stream of public disclosures of secrets "snatched" by former contractor Edward Snowden. In other words, this guy wants the media outlets shut down! Anyone recall how the Gestapo started doing the same shit in Germany before the Enabling Act? Probably not! Alexander reportedly complained on the Defense Department's "Armed With Science" blog.

”I think it's wrong that that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000 – whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these – you know it just doesn't make sense.

We ought to come up with a way of stopping it. I don't know how to do that. That's more of the courts and the policy-makers but, from my perspective, it's wrong to allow this to go on,"

Jeebus, hasn’t this character been taught the First Amendment? Evidently no more than he was taught the 4th. This stuff is now in the public domain, sir, so basically you are trying to close the barn door after the cows escaped when it was left open – by your own contractors and their massive snooping apparatus!

As Mr. Greenwald added:

“There are 25,000 employees of the NSA (and many tens of thousands more who work for private contracts assigned to the agency). Maybe one of them can tell The General about this thing called "the first amendment".


Well, Glen, clearly they think a punk congress will put through another Enabling Act followed by a newer version of the old Reich laws – where the Nazis tossed German newspaper editors into camps for not keeping quiet. But you know, “he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it”.

Anyway, let’s move on to how to protect your files from the snoopers, as delivered in an inset box within the same MJ article:

1) Use open source software. Sources with software publicly available are more secure than anything developed by Microsoft, Apple or Google. Open source platforms include Firefox for your browser and Thunderbird for your email,

2) Hide your location. This can be done by installing the easily downloadable Tor Browser, which is pre-configured to mask your IP address and therefore your location.

3) Encrypt: Yeah, we’ve known since last month that NSA’s spooks have defeated most commercially available encryption- but scrambling your online activities can still foil most hackers and snoops with too much time on their hands. The easily installable browser HTTPS everywhere encrypts your web activity. For email, use Pretty Good Privacy.

4) Mind the air gap: If you’re serious about being a modern day ‘Deep Throat’ (like the one that revealed the Watergate stuff to Woodward and Bernstein) build a computer that’s never been used so hasn’t been fucked up using backdoors by snoops. If you want to deliver a secure file to another, encrypt it first and physically deliver via USB stick.

5) Divorce Your Freakin’ Phone: In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the government can obtain your location from carriers without a warrant. Again, another 4th amendment violation. You can minimize what you share by disabling tracking functions on your apps, oh, and turning off your phone when not in use.

6) Use a pass phrase: A string of random common words, i.e. ‘jose lama tequila mountain’ is way easier to recall and way harder to crack than a single word. Because pass phrases are significantly longer than passwords they carry more bits of entropy so are more difficult to crack.

To see the entire presentation, ‘How to Lock Down Your Data’, go to the Mother Jones site or see p. 31 of the magazine.