NFL New Anthem Policy

"You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn't be playing, you shouldn't be there," Trump said in an interview that aired Thursday on Fox News. "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country. You have to stand proudly for the national anthem, and the NFL owners did the right thing if that's what they've done."

An interview brought out the aiding and abetting of sexual harassment that is (with real bite) attacked by the #MeToo movement. A older actress is in effect gang up on and not allowed to speak her piece and she is the one that feels it necessary to "move on" from her well deserved feelings of an actor who mistreated her.  The guys come off badly. But, the person in the White House comes out so much worse. And, that's just one issue.

I find a need to pound on this issue since the presidency being taken over, especially in the way it was, by this asshole matters so much. But, let's focus on this new anthem policy.  A player can stay off the field, but if he does not, the new  policy subjects teams to a fine if a player or any other team personnel do not show respect for the anthem. Charming. But, the protest IS respecting "for which it stands," to reference the Pledge Allegiance.  Protest is a basic part of who we are. And, the protest is to fight injustice, what we are not supposed to be.  Too hard to understand?

The teams (with one abstention) all agreed with the new policy but the NY Jets chairman publicly supported the right of players to protest. That's promising, giving one a reason to watch the team; maybe they will be able to put up credible talent this time around.  The NY Daily News also added to their prime front covers (they had some great back covers too) coming against the new policy.  This isn't too hard since against protest is sort of our thing as a nation, though people tend to look askance at it as you know sort of unpleasant.  As are the things being protested.

A word on Colin Kaepernick. As I note in comments here, it is pretty darn obvious that mere talent isn't the reason he was denied a job. Listing the mediocre talent that gets jobs while he is out of work is a parlor game. He did have struggles, so he wasn't a slam-dunk talent. But, the mindset is that he wasn't worth the "baggage" he would have brung. There is a calculus involved where strong critics like the person linked there still watches games while a certain nationalist/racist/low risk sort of fan or advertiser would be willing to not watch/pay if he was there. Plus, yes, some of the owners are conservatives who are inclined not to like him anyway.

This doesn't justify what was done to him, but going on and on (as that blog at times did) as if people are not aware of what was going on doesn't put the full story right out in the open. It is surely the case that some don't want to admit it, akin the story of the king with no clothes on. But, it is not like only talent is involved in player moves. We see this with the "Me Too" movement, to combine things together. The rules are not handled in the best way; this isn't the same thing as it being wrong that domestic violence will get you a suspension from baseball or football.

Anyway, the new policy seems to be seen as a sort of compromise, since people are not forced to take part in the national anthem. People have rightly noted that they might be a bit deluded to think that, especially such an across the board rule for all teams. It's an asinine anti-American policy.

ETA: Poll regarding policy:

White: 52% support; 32% oppose
Black: 29% support; 48% oppose
Hispanic: 49% support; 19% oppose

The Hispanic numbers are a bit surprising but otherwise fairly expected. Useful to know about strength of opposition here.