Posts
The president, the NFL, the flag, the national anthem and
kneeling. You all know the story.
Each team’s reaction is slightly different, but kneeling is
a common theme. The players are kneeling
because of the president’s “divisive” comments.
I am good with anything that decreases the respect for the office, so I
am good with this.
The commentary is slightly varied, except on one point: This
is not about the military!
On this, there is unity.
Conclusion
So, is the glass half-full or half-empty? I can’t decide. Decreasing respect for the office is
half-full, but Trump is doing a great job of this without the help of kneeling
NFL players. But this insistence from
all four corners that it isn’t about the military? This is the half-empty.
I agree, but maybe the silver lining compromise is that military and state worship ends up being slightly reduced if the NFL does the prudent thing and stops playing the anthem before games.
ReplyDeletehttp://veteransforpeaceindianapolis.blogspot.com/2017/09/vfp-supports-anthem-protesters.html?m=1
This is one way out. Or, perhaps, not have the players come out until after the anthem. I think it was only a few years ago that the league even began this practice; the players used to come out of the locker room after the anthem.
DeleteThe league has put themselves in this box. Let's see if / how they get out.
Personally, I'd like to see more fans sitting out the anthem. I go to as many baseball games as I can during the season,not much of a football fan. When they start the anthem I stand up then I go get a beer and take a leak. Guess I don't have the courage to be the only guy sitting it out. If a politician had a rally and a baseball game broke out I might go.
DeleteThe glass is full, reduces the opinion of the office and the game! Concussion ball is a lot of bread and circuses. Why the opinions of these people or other performers matter is beyond comprehension.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine the money if they took of the pads and gave those guys swords!
Tim,
DeleteAgreed, and thank you for the gladiatorial proposition. What's an empire to do without real blood and guts colliseum games :-)
More "Bread and Circuses" only Trumps interesting twist is to put the Circus within a Circus.
ReplyDeleteTwo ways I answer, when asked.
ReplyDeletePersonally: I don't care too awful much one way or another. On occasion, I've remained seated when asked to stand, and was happy that I could do so without being tossed indefinitely into a cell. Seeing others do so fills me with hope, and answers the question ending the song's first stanza in the affirmative.
Politically: This is a great hay-maker. It's divisive, derisive, and filled with the type of emotional rhetoric needed to keep red and blue in their camps. Best of all, these fractured, fetid, federal fiat spenders get to bloviate without spending anything. More empty rhetoric to go with their empty coffers.
I guess I am not optimistic enough to view this as anywhere close to diminishing the respect for the office of the president. I'd guess of the increased level of protest over the weekend came as a result of WHO the president is rather than anything else.
ReplyDeleteAs to the protests and the reaction to them, I am wondering if there is a subconscious thought among the public that the players actions imply that they are attacking the general culture; and the conscious angry reaction to these subconscious stimuli is manifesting itself as pro-military.
I wonder this, first of all, because of the large military presence during the anthem at football games. And second of all because it is not difficult, in my experience, to get people to admit that they think soldiers are generally lied to and mistreated by the government before, during, and after enlistment; even the most blindly pro-military person is susceptible to a more nuanced position, separating the individual soldier from the organization directing them from above. It is not difficult to convince them that most of the use of the military comes nowhere close to 'protecting our freedom'.
Why the angry pro-military response? Most people don't care enough to carry a new argument forward. They revert to previous assumptions/positions.
Forgetting for a minute that the anthem IS a war anthem,
does the general public take it as a war anthem, or simply as a symbol of the country (the country not the state)?
I think the latter.
Does the general public take the protests as an attack on the state or the country?
I think the latter.
Rewording the above, the average person, I think, takes these protests as an attack on the country/general American culture/society, whatever you wish to call it.
This is one more battle in the culture wars, and not, unfortunately, a moment for libertarians to celebrate as a sign of a growing anti-state sentiment.
SD
This is all reasonable.
DeleteSo, is the escalation of this (a few players kneeling) by Trump (his tweets) an attempt to arouse the "pro-military" sentiments in the country? After all, part of the reason he won was because he was seen as less militaristic than Clinton.
So many angles. Maybe, in the end, the POTUS will instruct the DOD to stop ad/propaganda monies from being spent with the NFL.
ReplyDeleteSo much hypocrisy all around.
I'm not sure Trump is getting less respect for this. My family and friends are mostly republicans, coworkers mostly far left liberals. My Facebook feed is filled with anti-NFL crap from both sides. Only a few even tie it to Trump, and they hated him already.
ReplyDeleteOther than adding chaff to the political skies, the only thing the NFL teams are accomplishing is alienating a large percentage of their supporters.
I will also say that the more politically you go the more chances you will have to alienating your customers and if the business is not based on politics (such as news or political talk) or if you cannot go into detail on why such a position is good (or correct) then it will probably lead to the end of that business in a slow suicide.
ReplyDeleteThis goes double for sports choosing left wing position it may not even be a Left wing issue it could even be a right wing issue but seen by the way it was presented it came off as anti-right or anti nationalist or other. Since the biggest sport fans tend to be on the right in their politics and also most people who watch sport to get entertain and take a break from politics then best not to talk about black lives matter or gay rights. They can tune into CNN if they want that.
Also it is a little hypocritical to fine players for wanting to show tribute to the 9/11 victims but let a player go on the field wear socks with police shown as pigs and say well he has freedom of speech.
Would the NFL be alright with a player showing a Roman salute during the national anthem instead of kneeling down? My guess is no and they might even ban the player or team that would do that.
Well I think if you are a business that relays on American supporters (since no one else in the world watches the NFL) I think not cracking down on the kneeling will destroy the NFL. Again you don't have to even like the american flags or anthem to know it is a bad business decision long term
Vox Day book SJWs Always Lie, is prefect on this subject.
It strikes me that the NFL may be in a position with no good way out. This puts a smile on my face.
DeleteI'm wondering if the nfl might be doing this in order to decrease the likelihood of an investigation into it's knowingly putting players at risk of injury related to multiple concussions.
ReplyDeleteTheir logic might be that if they are PC enough, they'd get protected status.
The NFL and/or various teams have long been happy to embed themselves in the popular culture in order to feed at the taxpayer trough. From tax funding for stadiums and military funds for propaganda purposes, they have been happy to gorge on the taxpayer. They are reaping the flip side of their antics now. Hopefully this is the long slow decline of American infatuation with Concussion Ball.
ReplyDelete