Anthem

[Wake-up!]

Anthem
by: Bionic Mosquito
October, 12, 2017

It is a sin to write this.
-        Anthem, Ayn Rand

Blasphemy.  The debate about the national anthem, standing, kneeling, sitting, troops, the NFL, Trump, Goodell.  Kneel to protest police brutality of minorities and in support of social justice; stand to honor the country and the troops.  These are the two sides, and this reality – that these are the only sides – is pounded into us all.

Even those who kneel say that they support the troops.

Trump Embraces the Culture War, by Patrick J. Buchanan; commenting on the divide in the country represented by this anthem protest issue, Pence walking out of the stadium, etc.:

In the culture wars, Trump has rejected compromise or capitulation and decided to defend the ground on which his most loyal folks stand.

On the essentials of nationhood — ancestry, morality, faith, culture, history, heroes — we really are no longer one nation and one people.

He offers that Americans are now two people:

All weekend, viewers of cable TV were treated to self-righteous wailing from the acolytes of Colin Kaepernick, patron saint of the 49ers, that "taking the knee" to protest racism and racist cops is a most admirable exercise of the First Amendment right to protest.

As an aside, it was a green beret or ranger or some such that told Kaepernick last year that kneeling would be respectful.

What Trump's folks are saying in response is this:

"You may have a First Amendment right to disrespect our flag, or even to burn it, but you have no right to make us listen to you, or respect you, or buy tickets to your games, or watch you on Sunday."

Two sides: social justice or embrace the government.

I fall on neither side.  When I am at an event where the anthem is performed, I don't stand for the troops and the country, and I don't kneel for social justice.  I either wander in the hallways outside of the main arena or remain seated in my chair.  I do this because I don't honor the troops; I don't equate country with government – and I very much protest the government.

What I protest is that this anthem has become synonymous with military worship; I protest the killing of millions of innocents overseas by troops who volunteer to do this killing.

I remember once wandering the halls, standing in line for food when the anthem began.  I am placing my order and the women behind the counter just stopped listening to me.  At first I couldn't figure out why.  When I did, I thought – what a waste of my time; I can't even order food while she stands in worship!

Another time I was wandering the halls and successfully escaped the anthem and the worship.  I went back to my seat...just in time for (unbeknownst to me beforehand) the introduction of a war vet – Afghanistan or Iraq, I don't recall.  Everyone stood and cheered – louder than if the home team won the first championship in its and the city's history.

I remained seated.

There aren't two sides to this national anthem debate.  There are three...at least.

As an aside, I cannot express how much I am enjoying the NFL choking on the patriotism that they so eagerly stuff down our throats every day – all for a few shekels from the DOD.

A Curiosity

It is a sin to think words no others think.
-        Anthem, Ayn Rand

Last season the Oakland Raiders were one of the favorites to get to the Super Bowl until their quarterback, Derek Carr, was injured and missed the playoffs.

This season, they were favored to at least get to the AFC Championship game; their first two games followed suit, as they pretty much destroyed their competition.  Derek Carr was playing great – as he did all of last year until his injury.

But in this third game?  The Raiders were pretty much destroyed:

Under pressure all night, Carr was 19 of 31 for 118 yards with a touchdown and two interceptions. Carr had thrown 112 consecutive passes before being picked off by Montae Nicholson on the second play of the game.

The Raiders went 0 of 11 on third down as part of their anemic offensive effort. Their 47 first-half yards were their fewest since Week 14 against Denver in 2015, according to ESPN Stats & Info.

Carr was sacked four times in this game, this after being sacked only twice in total in the previous two games combined.

Oh, did I forget to mention?  This third game was on the first big Sunday of anthem protests – after Trump first called out the NFL and its players.  But what does this have to do with Carr?

A vast majority of Raiders players sat on the bench arm in arm. Carr was among those standing, along with [Raiders coach] Del Rio.

They have lost two more games since.  One wonders if the team gave up on the coach and the quarterback.

Conclusion

Anthem of the heart and mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
-        Anthem, Rush

[redcliffsw]

Good one!

Our country was not established for an exhibitition of such rituals.  We call that stuff "patrioitsm"?  The U S flag code was invented in the 20's or 30's  for beginning another tradition of socialism.  A socialist wrote the Pledge pf Allegiance that we are expected to recite when prompted.  Many don't.

[Wake-up!]

From: Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Is Taking a Knee Protected Speech?
Published on Oct 12, 2017

"The constitutionally guaranteed 'freedom to be intellectually ... diverse or even contrary,' and the 'right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order,' encompass the freedom to express publicly one's opinions about our flag, including those opinions which are defiant or contemptuous."
— Supreme Court of the United States in Street v. New York (1969)

Sometimes the public expression of unwanted ideas reaches directly into our living rooms. When President Donald Trump attacked a half-dozen or so professional football players who, instead of standing during the traditional playing of the national anthem prior to football games, "took a knee" by kneeling on one or both of their knees during the anthem, hundreds more players on national television took a knee in defiance of the president.

Here is the back story.

Last year, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, Colin Kaepernick, began quietly taking a knee at NFL games to protest what he said was the excessive use of force by police. He was the subject of mild but largely below-the-radar criticism by those who thought sincerely that taking a knee publicly during the playing of the national anthem was a sign of disrespect for the flag and the anthem and thus for this country.

When a few of his buddies and former colleagues — he is no longer a member of an NFL team — followed suit for a variety of reasons, all of which centered around the right to protest the policies of the government, Trump saw a political opening.

At a rally in Alabama last month, Trump aggressively attacked the practice of taking a knee. He argued that it was so disrespectful to the American flag and the national anthem that those who had taken a knee should be fired from their jobs.

This pronouncement focused a spotlight on the six or so scattered players who had followed Kaepernick's lead, and soon hundreds were doing so. The president took their behavior as an affront to him and to the nation, and he persisted in his attacks on the players. Soon, some team owners joined their players in various means of expressing solidarity with those who had taken a knee.

When the players union backed up these silent expressions of political opinions, it argued that all of its members have a constitutional right to express themselves in uniform in their workplace. Do they? The short answer is that it depends on where the players are when they take a knee.

Some jurisdictions — such as California, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York — give more protection to employees for expressive conduct in the workplace than others do. When the expressive conduct — taking a knee, bowing one's head, locking arms with colleagues — occurs in the workplace, the issue is not necessarily one of free speech, because the First Amendment only comes into play when the government itself is accused of infringing upon or compelling speech. In the NFL, the alleged infringers of speech or compellers of speech are team management, not the government.

Expressive conduct — lawful behavior that offers a political opinion — is the constitutional equivalent of free speech. So interfering with expressive conduct or commanding its cessation in conformity to management's political or patriotic views constitutes interfering with speech. May employers do that?

In states where expressive conduct in the workplace is protected, employees may express themselves as long as they do not materially interfere with the business of the workplace. In states without that employee protection, they may not do so.

So in states such as Texas, an employee who refuses to comply with an instruction from management to conform to certain behavior in public — e.g., standing during the playing of the national anthem — can be disciplined, as Texas lacks the added protections for individual workplace expressions that a few states provide.

However, even in the states that lack the employee expression protection, if management's instructions to conform require conformance on property that the government owns, such as a publicly owned stadium, then management is treated constitutionally as if it were the government. Just as the government cannot interfere with speech to suppress its content or to compel conformity, neither may team management when teams play on government-owned land.

Thus, in states where the government owns the stadiums or where expressive conduct in the workplace is protected, employees may engage in expressive conduct in defiance of management, as long as their conduct does not interfere with the workplace. Just as the government may interfere with speech for non-content-related reasons — for example, noise at night or safety in a crowd — management may interfere with speech when the speech itself interferes with the business of the workplace.

If team management could show that taking a knee materially interferes with the workplace product — money for the owners resulting from players winning football games — because it chases away ticket buyers or reduces advertising or media revenue or impairs team morale and thus produces poor play, it would have a strong case, even in the states with employee protection laws and even in venues owned by the government.

In the famous flag burning cases a few years ago, the Supreme Court made clear that in America, we have no revered symbols that command orthodox respect. The flag itself represents the right to treat it as one wishes. We are free to respect the flag and to shun those who do not, but we may not harm a hair on their heads.

I am with the French philosopher Voltaire, who, regarding folks who had literally lost their heads, is reputed to have said, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[redcliffsw]

The socialist nations have their national anthems and pledges.  We shouldn't.

The uSA never had any such kind of government stuff until the 1920's or 1930*s and since then, socialism has been increasing daily.

This socialist trend ought to be reversed.  I'm not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.