A Couple Thoughts on the NFL Players’ “Protests”

The Wall Street Journal ran a couple of pieces on this, one by Matthew Futterman and Andrew Beaton (Behind the NFL’s Frantic Scramble to Hit Back at Trump) and the other an op-ed by Jason Riley.

The former centered on the purported disarray among the NFL’s management, players, players union, owners, and coaches as they tried to figure out how to ride the tiger they’d turned loose with their “protests.”  The latter was a sort of coming-of-age piece wherein Riley went from national anthem sitter to a national anthem stander.

My two thoughts are closely related to each other.  This is my view of the Futterman and Beaton piece:

….players—many of whom say they are deeply offended by the president’s statements….

That’s OK–many of us are deeply offended by players’ attacks on our flag and national anthem.

Goodell had released a statement that Trump had shown “an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL…failure to understand the overwhelming force for good [we] represent in our communities.”

Where is the good in the NFL’s divisive attacks on our national symbols? Where is the NFL’s respect for these?

These Precious Ones claim to protest inequities against minorities. This is nonsense. Were they interested in protesting inequities against minorities, they’d do that instead of attacking our flag and anthem. Were they interested in working against those inequities, they’d go into communities and work the problems rather than kneeling on the safety of the sidelines saying, “There’s a problem. Someone else fix it.”

This is what Riley’s piece generated in my pea brain:

The players have said they are protesting the unjust treatment of blacks by law enforcement….

This is nonsense. If the players wanted to protest unjust treatment, they would protest unjust treatment. Instead, they’re attacking our flag and our national anthem, and they’re insulting Gold Star families and veterans who fought, many of whom were maimed or killed in those fights, for these guys’ right to protest.

The stereotype of “dumb jock” was ugly 50 years ago, and it’s no prettier today. These players know full well what they’re doing; perpetuating that stereotype by pretending they don’t is as ugly as the stereotype.

More Mueller Leaks

Even Howard Kurtz seems to be catching on, as he wrote for Fox News.

Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation leaks are continuing apace.

Suddenly, there are a whole lot of leaks about Paul Manafort.

Could this, just possibly, be the special counsel’s way of putting pressure on President Trump’s former campaign chairman?

And

[T]he detailed nature of the leaks is also troubling. As a onetime Justice Department reporter, I can tell you that such leaks in a criminal investigation are rare, as well as illegal.

Here are two of the latest Mueller team leaks (leaks Mueller continues to allow, if not encourage, as demonstrated by his choosing to do nothing about stopping them):

The [New York] Times discloses that when federal agents conducted an early-morning raid at Manafort’s Virginia home in July, they picked the lock. As for details, the story says the agents not only took documents and copied computer files, “they even photographed the expensive suits in his closet.”

Who knows such detail other than Mueller’s agents conducting the raid (assuming we can accept that the NYT isn’t making up such entertaining items)?  Certainly not Manafort; had he been there he surely would have opened the door for the agents.

And

CNN reported that federal investigators wiretapped Manafort both before and after the election.

Certainly, Manafort or anyone associated with him would not have known about the taps and so could not have leaked this item.  Their knowledge would have defeated the purpose of the tap.

And another leak, this one unmentioned by Kurtz:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has interviewed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about President Donald Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The only people familiar with the investigation would be Rosenstein and his team and Mueller and his team.  Rosenstein and his associates have no interest in leaking this interview; indeed, Rosenstein and his associates plainly know better than to leak, both from a legal perspective and a political one as members of the Trump administration.  Only Mueller has an interest in leaking this interview.

It’s time for Mueller and his team to be fired for cause and an honest cop put in charge of the special investigation, together with an honest team of investigators.  And yes, at this late date, an honest investigation needs to occur—promptly, efficiently, and speedily—in order quickly and without further delay or stall either to vindicate Manafort, Trump, the Trump campaign, et al., or to produce legitimate and serious charges.

And Mueller and each member of his team need to be investigated regarding the felonious nature of these leaks.

What Else?

Adjunct Professor Michael Issacson at the John Jay College, a part of the City University of New York system and a used-to-be prestigious school has expressed his disdain for and hopes for violence against police officers, tweeting

He then showed he meant it, telling the New York Daily News regarding his tweet,

Oh, that s—?  Everybody dies.

The college management’s response?  President Karol Mason in her press release:

I want to state clearly that I was shocked by these statements. They are abhorrent.  This adjunct expressed personal views that are not consistent with our college’s well-known and firm values and principles and my own personal standards and principles. I am appalled that anyone associated with John Jay, with our proud history of supporting law enforcement authorities, would suggest that violence against police is ever acceptable.

Fine sounding words, but what has she actually done to show they’re not just idle chit-chat?  She closed her presser with this:

The safety of our students, faculty and staff is our top priority. Today, members of the John Jay faculty received threats, and our students expressed concerns for their safety in the classroom. Out of concern for the safety of our students, faculty and staff, we are immediately placing the adjunct on administrative leave as we continue to review this matter.

Notice that.  Isaacson is put on “administrative leave” for the school’s sake, not because Isaacson did anything wrong in the eyes of school management.  Apparently, he didn’t.  Idle chit-chat, indeed.

Beside that, Isaacson is an adjunct professor, and he can be fired at will at any time.  Even a tenured professor could be fired over this; it clearly would be a violation of his terms of office.

Administrative leave.

Aside: it’s interesting that Isaacson’s implied threat was made late last month, but the NLMSM is only just starting to report on it.  In limited fashion.

Manufactured Racism

A Democratic congresswoman said drawing attention to a colleague’s first job in the fast food industry is racist.

Seriously.

Congressman Joe Wilson (R, SC) was talking up the value of a fast food job as a means of gaining valuable experience and life/work lessons while on the job, and he mentioned that Senator Tim Scott (R, SC) had started out in such a starter job in a Chick-fil-A franchise, and now he was a sitting Senator.

[Franchises] provide entry level jobs for people to have first-time employment, improve themselves, and succeed.  In South Carolina we particularly recognize this. US Senator Tim Scott had his first job at a Chick-fil-A franchise.

It’s true enough that Wilson was factually wrong about Scott’s relationship with the franchise—he was mentored by a franchisee rather than having his first job at one.  However, it’s crystalline that Wilson was not being racist in referencing Scott’s employment history.

That didn’t stop Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (D, OH) from deciding to get her knickers in a twist over the reference.

I have to say this. I am trying to figure out for the life of me what Tim Scott has to do with what we are talking about today. So he worked at Chick-fil-A? So what? I mean did [Wilson] bring it up because he’s black?

No, Wilson brought it up to show the value of starter jobs of the sort a franchise can offer.

Fudge knows this.  She manufactured her beef for her own political ends.  Making up a racist beef, though, where it’s clear that no racism exists is itself racist.  She could have served her personal politics in other ways.  Unless this is her personal politics.

Discrimination

Now FEMA is doing it, and it’s religious discrimination.  Churches, bastions of succor in times of disaster—like Hurricanes Harvey and Irma—suffer their own damages in those disasters, as they did in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.  However, unlike other charitable organizations in similar straits, churches are being denied FEMA assistance to recover.

Law on this is not clear because separation of church and state, New York University Law Professor Burt Neuborne is claiming.

The difficulty is that the Constitution has two provisions in it. It has a freedom of religion, but it also has kind of a freedom from religion which prevents government money from being used for religious purposes, worship purposes.

No, it doesn’t.  This is, at best, mistaken.  The two relevant 1st Amendment clauses are the Free Exercise Clause—Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]—and the Establishment Clause—Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  There’s nothing in there about freedom from religion; that’s just the distortionate drivel used by crowds like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the like.

The Federal government cannot favor one religion over another or favor religion over atheism; there’s nothing in there that prohibits the Feds from providing disaster recovery help to religious organizations along with the same sort of help for secular non-profit organizations.  In fact, refusing to do so violates the Establishment Clause by actively disfavoring religion rather than acting neutrally toward it—as the Clause requires.

Neuborne wasn’t finished.

The question is: can they get the money and rebuild their worship facilities? Because then the money would be going towards worship, not to help people from not getting skinned knees on the playground, or being able to get food at the food bank.

This is just disingenuous.  No, the money would not be going toward worship, it would be going toward restoring a building.  A building that comes in critically handy for sheltering those displaced by disasters, natural or otherwise.  Regardless of the religions (or lack) of the sheltered or the shelter.

The attacks on religion from continues.