Much tougher to defend the rights of those who offend us.

She has the right to say she doesn't like it.

And understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with her that the protests are stupid.

After the zillionth person refuses to stand for the national anthem the impact has played out. Then it becomes a spectacle in itself, not something to bring attention to an injustice.

So the question is, people will say, why stop if there is still injustice? Because the destination of zero injustice is not the goal, it is the journey that counts. Get the ball rolling, move on to another tactic.

What began as a legitimate protest is now a fad.

How about them apples?

But many progressive jurists, or which Ginsburg is one, will tell you that the flag and the Constitution it stands for represent very progressive ideas. Or at least, a modern interpretation of it allows for progressivism and social justice.

Yes, the United States government was once an enabler of racial oppression. But in the past fifty years, Federal power has been used to end discrimination. There are numerous examples to cite, from the VRA, to affirmative action programs, to laws against hate crimes. Now we have a LONG way to go. But the Federal government, and it's flag, are a slightly ironic target of protest.

patriotism is promoted for the purpose of manufacturing consent for military aggression. All of the progressive principles you cite, are embodied by the constitution, not the flag and not the national anthem.

I found the HBO Real Sports documentary by Bryant Gumbel from a couple weeks ago very enlightening.

It started during WWI as a means of expressing wartime patriotism and support for the war (at a time when people were being jailed and deported for speaking out against the war.) The anthem itself is not original, nor do other countries force their citizens to stand and sing national anthems. That is a product of the early 20th-century fascism, of which the US came dangerously close to being part of (with the previous ethno-nationalist movement of the 1920s-30s.)

The original salute required to "not disrespect" the flag (and hence not offend Ginsberg, et al) was none other than the fascist salute, per Bryant Gumbel. It was dropped in 1942 in favor of the silly (and non-valid military protocol) hand-over-heart civilian salute.

Real Sports does some fascinating journalism.

I did know that the original flag salute was the fascist salute. I recall seeing an old video with schoolchildren doing it... Very bizarre. I had no idea the whole history though!

If some RW asshole ball player was protesting abortion being legal. I wonder what would happen then?

Personally, I do not think politics or religion of any kind belongs at a sporting event. I thought Tebow was a dumb ass, BTW.

Me too, but I don't agree with anyone on everything.

I just don't agree that the protests are stupid.

She is reinforcing the need to defend people who do things you may not agree with the methods.


I didn't read where she said the Black Lives Matter in general was bad. Now if she came out and said that it'd be another story completely.

I support her supporting the right to protest even if she doesn't agree with the methods.

I've even defended the idiot Rush's right to be an asshole.. and yes I had to fight the urge to vomit in my mouth while doing so LOL

The protests are necessary and important.

In contrast, I find the routine, reflexive standing and mumbling of the anthem to be a total waste of time.

Including the bit about treacherous black slaves fighting for the Redcoats.

Or the vicious attacks on Dave Matthews Band in the late 60s for their (folky white) "soul rendition" of the anthem at a time when only soldiers were allowed to sing the anthem.

They don't go back that far. Must be someone else.

"when only soldiers were allowed to sing the anthem."

Now I'm at a loss.

He had to be escorted out of the stadium for singing a (white folk music) "Soul" rendition of the anthem.

This was at a time when military-style bands played the anthem, not pop singers.

Now we live in an age of "Born in the USA" when "black-sounding" pop music is appropriated by white-nationalist xenophobes instead of being booed off the stage.

There was an interesting transition in the 70s in the history of white reactions to black culture with Lynyrd Skynyrd throwing blacks out of their "hippie" audience by refusing to play "Sweet Home Alabama" (according to the Muscle Shoals documentary) at Confederate flag-draped stadiums of their supposedly positive-minded lyrics.

Since Skynyrd it's been widely understood in the alt-right online and sports-fan troll communities that appropriation is key to rendering the culture of their enemies irrelevant.

come up with the name of the group.

Thanks.

Because it has never been included at sporting events in my lifetime. So they really aren't singing the original poem by Keys, they are singing a song based on a poem and purposely cutting out the racist parts. That is a good thing... racism needs to be cut out of everything.

Unlike right wingers who want everyone to obey their personal views or go to jail.

All she has to do is ask the families of African-American, Mexican-Americans and other POCs of the unarmed victims of police killings.

She can't ask the victims of course because they are dead.

I'm glad she stayed on the bench this long but it may be time for her to step down after Hillary wins.

I mean after all the many killings of unarmed black men by police all she had to say about the protests is that "it's stupid".

It's like she's unaware of the reasons for Kaepernick's protest.

It's dumb in the sense that it works very much at cross purposes with what they were trying to accomplish, and only pushes people away.

But please don't read too much in my comment. I was referring to the specific act of refusing to stand at attention during the National Anthem.

It really does nothing for civil rights or the efforts to abate police abuses, and instead is political manna from heaven for the deplorables among us.

is how it spotlights the hypocrisy of those who claim their only real problem with protests against police shootings of unarmed black men is that the protesters need to be less rude, obnoxious, and annoying, but instead find some more restrained and decorous means of protesting.

Well, they found a perfectly polite and quiet way to protest, and people can't abide their approach.

The protest is against what is essentially a modern form of lynching by armed agents of the state. Noisy, rambunctious, and inconveniently obstructive protests against such brutality are perfectly justified, but this form is attention getting without being loud, dangerous, or obstructive, so critics should approve of it.

on the issue of police killings of unarmed black men.

And notice I wrote "protests" not "protest" as Kaepernick's quiet, non-violent action has spread to include many other athletes on not just the professional level in sports other than football but also to college and high school athletes.

That's quite a lot of "nothing" don't you think?

Much tougher to defend the rights of those you think are assholes.

Just thinks it is stupid.

So, people who exercise their rights are dumb, disrespectful, stupid and arrogant?

Anyone who calls Trump stupid is name calling?

Nazis, or KKK marching or the RW talking about 2nd Amendment solutions comes to mind.

Okay.

2 yrs from now it will be a different one

It would have been dumb if the objective were to please fans; but obviously, the objective was to express opposition to the status quo, i.e., he did something that pissed most people off.

Was it disrespectful? Yes, but again, that was the point.

that we are now having a conversation
we should have had years ago.

I respectfully disagree with the Hon. Justice Bader.

The reason for the protest is lost in the background noise.

There are better ways to protest.

Is already a nationally recognized organization (BLM) bringing awareness and speaking out about this issue. Teaming up with them and bringing his resources to the table would be one better way.

I may not want to do that, but it's quiet and nonviolent.

Judicial branch of government to do nothing to bring
the US torturers to justice.

I'm a Vietnam vet, and I no longer stand up and
salute the torture state.

And disrespectful to the tradition of playing "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" instead.

But those of us that object, don't tend to riot about it.

Speaking of "dumb," what a dumb question from Couric.

You're asking a Supreme Court Justice "if she believes" it's within their rights to not stand for the National Anthem? What's the point of that question?

Seems like a gotcha attempt in hopes that RBG will say no and Couric can have a sensational headline.

Ergo, the purpose of Couric's 'dumb' question is to educate the thousands of dummies out there that people have the right to do this with impunity.

If that was Couric's intent, to basically influence the readers/viewers/listeners by manipulating the question/answer process to achieve a certain response, then while I applaud her attempts to support Kaepernick, I don't applaud her manipulating a seemingly innocent question/answer session to achieve that.

That's actually a little scary that we love press people that do that.

and I think the NFL should take her advise on how to deal with it.

protest should be connected to the criminals behaviors (brutal police, justice system, etc.)This seem disconnected and therefore not very effective.

His protest is a perfect approach, and it has gone viral.

before the opening bell?

Admittedly, I might be willing to endorse a cartoon character for President, so it's political.

which could ban players from protesting in this way the same way the NFL enforces rules
against celebrations in the end zone.

So, no.

I don't think these statements by athletes are dumb at all. They are just bringing attention to something that is very important in our society. It is peaceful and it is respectful.