Yahoo News:
A wave of protests swept across the National Football League on Sunday as President Donald Trump escalated his feud with players who kneel during the US national anthem to draw attention to racial injustice.This situation cannot be discussed without starting from the beginning, the protest of shootings of black men by police, even though most of the shootings were later deemed to be justified. Since the playing of the National Anthem prior to a game is an act of patriotism, or even nationalism if you prefer, and standing is merely an act of respect towards our country. This act has nothing to do with racism.
Trump ignited a firestorm of criticism after comments on Friday in which he described NFL players who chose to take a knee through renditions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as "sons of bitches" who should be fired.
The US leader doubled down on those remarks in an early morning tweet, urging fans to boycott the NFL as long as the protests continued.
"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!" Trump wrote.
Yet players throughout America's most popular sport took a defiant stance just hours later, kneeling, linking arms or raising clenched fists during the anthem.
More than 150 players could be seen kneeling or sitting in the 14 games that took place Sunday, easily the largest such demonstration since former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first began protesting in 2016.
...Kaepernick's protest was aimed at drawing more attention to treatment of minorities in America following a spate of deadly police shootings of black men.
Colin Kaepernick's protest was, in effect, saying the shootings were a result of racism by the entire country. Why protest a patriotic display unless you were making a comment about the entire country? But that is what Kaepernick did, and what other players have been replicating since then.
Before we go any further, let us remember the basics: Freedom of speech is the paramount issue here. While there should never be any legal consequences for utilizing free speech rights (short of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater), that does NOT mean there are no consequences to free speech. If you call your boss a jackass, he can still fire you.
Whether you agree or disagree with Kaepernick and other players protesting in this manner, they had the right to make such protests. But the NFL also has the right to take action against them for it if they want. That is basically what President Trump was calling for from the NFL.
On the other side of this issue:
In subsequent remarks to reporters, Trump denied there was a racial dimension to his criticism of activist athletes, most of whom are black.Trump is both right and wrong. Because the protests are incorrectly directed at the entire country, they disrespect our country. On the other hand, the purpose of the protests is to point out racism, so naturally there is a racial dimension to this issue.
"This has nothing to do with race or anything else. This has to do with respect for our country and respect for our flag," Trump said.
Before drawing any conclusions, let's consider one more view on this issue:
The Hill:
Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Alex Smith questioned why President Trump was condemning NFL players more strongly than he did white supremacists last month.A peaceful protest, by virtue of its existence, does not make its point correct. It just means somebody is protesting, and they still have the right to be wrong. When and if they are wrong, if someone calls them out on it, that is the consequence of free speech.
Smith called Trump’s criticism of NFL players who kneel during the anthem “alarming” because he was “targeting the NFL, targeting the quality and character of guys in this league for that very protest," according to the Kansas City Star.
“It’s the same guy who couldn’t condemn violent neo-Nazis. And he’s condemning guys taking a knee during the anthem,” Smith said.
“There are bigger issues out there that he probably should be worried about. But for some reason the NFL is on his mind.”
Smith said it was “uncomfortable” for him to talk politics but that “it struck a chord a little bit to see guys get attacked for a peaceful protest.”
Back to Smith's main point about Trump. Actually, Trump called out both the white supremacists and the Leftist supremacists (aka Antifa) for their violent actions at the Charlottesville protest. But Smith's point is valid in that Trump was a bit more animated in his complaint about the kneeling NFL players. But does that make Trump wrong about this? Not really.
Even if Trump was right, he handled this so poorly that he made the idiot athletes look like geniuses.
Ultimately, this comes down to a disagreement between millionaires and a billionaire over an issue which shouldn't be an issue in the first place. A century ago, the media might have praised the police shootings of black men. 50 years ago, the media might have ignored the shootings. Now, the media reports the shootings as the greatest of sins, but before they have all the facts (and when the facts do come out, they get the page 17 treatment). So idiot football players take up the cause that shouldn't exist, using it as an excuse to damn our entire country. Then our president steps into this mess in the most un-presidential way possible, sounding more like a drunk idiot spouting off in a bar.
In other news...
NBC News:
An updated version of the Graham-Cassidy health care bill circulating among lobbyists and on Capitol Hill on Sunday night has changed to provide more benefits to Alaska, a move to appeal to Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has been highly skeptical of efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.So even if this change makes Sen. Murkowski happy, that still leaves 2 Republicans as firm "no's", and one Republican leaning against it. Expect to see a change which makes Sen. Collins able to "get to yes" on this legislation.
The new version would grandfather Native Alaskans into Medicaid so they wouldn't lose coverage after the expanded Medicaid program is rolled back in 2020, according to a section-by-section summary of the new legislation obtained by an industry lobbyist (PDF).
The update would also carve out a special provision for states with low population densities so that 5 percent of federal funds would be guaranteed for rural states, including Alaska.
It's still unclear, however, whether the legislation will be brought to the floor for a vote this week before the deadline of Saturday. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., came out in opposition to the bill Friday because of what complained was a rushed and closed process. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Sunday that it would be difficult for her to get to "yes" on the legislation.
Because no Democrats are expected to vote for the bill, Republicans need 50 of their 52 members to vote for it.
...Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has also said he's likely to vote against the bill unless a number of his demands are met. It's unclear whether this version would meet his requirements.
No comments:
Post a Comment