Righties Still Delude Themselves About Trump, NFL and Flag Protests

It appears the education of righties is a never-ending task, and at times borders on futility because of their penchant to rely on fake news (e.g. from FOX News) and also fake sports polls and bogus, related sources. How else explain the 'forecasts" of some that - watch out! - the NFL's fortunes will nose dive on account of  not followingTrump's stupid order to fire players for not standing for the anthem. Please! Look at any serious sports site (most of these critics don't even follow football, never have) and you will see ten times as many fans as the "boycotting", bailout losers begging for the latter's season tickets.  After all, if a person is so unctuous and dumb not to use them, why let them go to waste?

And this doesn't come close to their failure to process basic facts! For example, some of these bloggers have quoted Dallas' owner Jerry Jones  about being "against the players' protests"  - and yet - if they'd had a clue they'd have SEEN Jones kneeling with his Cowboys' players on Monday night. How do they explain that? They can't!

These bloggers also highlighted a Steelers' player as the "only one" not to remain the club house as the anthem was played, but failed to note he later apologized for embarrassing his teammates and trying to one-up them.   Again, these sort of miscues demonstrate why all their predictions for the NFL's demise this year - with fake low ratings added in - are basically humbug and horse feathers.

These jokers, who clearly missed Jerry Jones kneeling with his players, also missed the memo that flag protests ARE FREE SPEECH!

As I pointed out in a post from two years ago (July 24):

"in the case Texas v. Johnson (1989) flag burning was upheld as symbolic free speech which could not be curtailed under the 1st amendment. "

And further:

 "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."

Logic and good sense dictate that if flag burning is permitted free speech then not standing for the anthem, must likewise be. One is here not burning or destroying a flag but simply passively refusing to posture for its proclaimed principles when it's misused to advance racial discrimination, aggressive wars and economic exploitation. Hence, kneeling for the anthem was Colin Kaepernick's right, in terms of his protests against racism, and  those who complained be damned. We who are aware of the NFL's own rules also know that they do not demand a player MUST  stand for the national anthem.  And yes, that means that free speech protections apply to NFL players, contrary to some misinformed bloggers. Also, the players - as contract agents - are  granted rights and protections that (sadly) ordinary (9 to 5) American workers for corporations are not (as in the case Waters v. Churchill).

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".  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)! That some 'Muricans can't or won't get that through their thick skulls is beyond belief.  It does, however, show what fools they've been played for by Donald Dotard using his weekly dog whistle via tweets.

 In the end this issue should not be about Kaepernick and other NFL players being "un-American" but in fact being Americans and patriots in the fullest sense of all - by holding their nation to account and exercising their first amendment rights just as their critics so proclaim in their assorted blogs.

Sadly, even the Attorney General of this country doesn't appear to grasp the basic principles of liberty and first amendment rights pertaining to the NFL protests- though Jeff B. Sessions pilloried campus displays and protests as violating those rights. Talk about hypocrisy!
 

And now for a hum dinger of a finding related to the Russian exploitation of Facebook to drive fake news, and divide Americans further. It's now been revealed that Trump's pal Putin had recruited Russkie cyber goons to pump and hump on the side of Trump AGAINST the NFL and demanding the players "respect the flag". How's that for irony? Even more, the sunshine patriots blasting the NFL and owners are really now seen in league with the Russians. And they carp and bitch about Kaepernick wearing a "Castro" t-shirt. HAHAHAHAHA!  What's worse,  a guy wearing a Castro Tee or traitors siding with Putin and Russian to undermine this country?

In the end, Trump's anti-NFL dog whistling was all about division, spewing phony patriotism  to jack up his clueless base.  The sooner that base wises up the sooner they ought to see they've all been played for clowns and losers.  Especially after he flat out informed them in January that he didn't care about them, he "only needed their votes".

The Kaepernick Kerfuffle -Why All The Fuss?

The essay of a former Marine caught my attention, appearing as it did in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times. There Brian Adam Jones wrote:

"I’ve been out of the Marine Corps for a little over three years, and I still get chills when I see an American flag billowing in the wind. More times than I care to remember, as a young corporal in Afghanistan, I stood and saluted at ramp ceremonies as the bodies of the fallen were carried into an aircraft for the journey home, their caskets draped in American flags."

Jones went on to point out that one of the freedoms he fought for was the freedom of speech that Colin Kaepernick demonstrated in refusing to stand for the national anthem.  As he wrote:

"One of those central values is freedom of expression, which Colin Kaepernick has every right to evoke. If the flag symbolizes freedom of expression, Kaepernick was absolutely correct to focus his protest on the flag. If the flag is a sacred symbol for America's values, we should honor it by rigorously debating what those values are, and whether we are doing them justice.

As a veteran, I revere the flag. As a black man, I share in Kaepernick’s anger and concerns over violence toward black men. And as an American, I respect his right to share his voice, and I admire his willingness to subject himself to scrutiny and to risk his career. Standing with his teammates, following along with everyone else, requires no courage. Blind obedience to the flag is not something I, or anyone I know, fought to defend."


And it is indeed freedom of expression Kaepernick exhibited, irrespective of what we may personally think about it. It also harks back to what Charles Reich once ruminated on in his 'The Greening of America': Do national symbols dominate and control US, or do we as free agents have the right to question and control them, say in terms of our own expressions of our first amendment rights?

The issue also came up for consideration some years ago when the Right  tried to get a constitutional amendment passed that outlawed flag burning. In this pursuit they clearly believed that a piece of fabric, cloth ought to dominate the lives of citizens. Thankfully, the Supreme Court  ultimately made it clear that flag burning is protected speech even after a lower court said the same.

As I pointed out in a post from two years ago (July 24):

"in the case Texas v. Johnson (1989) flag burning was upheld as symbolic free speech which could not be curtailed under the 1st amendment. "

And further:

 "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."

Logic and good sense dictate that if flag burning is permitted free speech then not pledging allegiance to the flag at all, period, must likewise be. One is here not burning or destroying a flag but simply passively not pledging any allegiance to proclaimed principles that others insist are behind it. This was Kaepernick''s right and those who are aware of the NFL's own rules also know that they do not demand a player MUST stand and pledge allegiance.

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)! That some 'Muricans can't or won't get that through their skulls is beyond belief.

 In the end this issue should not be about Kaepernick being "un-American" or a "secret raghead" but in fact being an American and patriot in the fullest sense of all - by exercising his first amendment principles just as other so daringly declare and self-proclaim in their assorted blogs.

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/peter-white/68781/colin-kaepernicks-protest-joined-by-two-others

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!