'United We Stand' rally for Colin Kaepernick in NYC

[T-post Tom]

Surprised this didn't happen sooner.......


We're a couple weeks into training camp and Colin Kaepernick remains a free agent, and it's unclear if that will change in the coming weeks and months.
One explanation for Kaepernick's current situation: He hasn't been very good in recent seasons. Another take is that Kaepernick is being blackballed for his stance on social-justice issues. That's why there will be a rally at NFL headquarters in Manhattan on Aug. 23 to support the embattled quarterback, according to a tweet from filmmaker Spike Lee.

This comes three months after Kevin Livingston, the president of 100 Suits for 100 Men -- one of the organizations Kaepernick worked with earlier this year -- organized a "stand up" outside the NFL's New York City headquarters as a show of solidarity with the quarterback.
"He stood up for us," Livingston told ESPN's Michael Rothstein at the time. "It's only right that he took our issues in our communities and brought it to a national level and sacrificed salary and being ostracized by the NFL. It was only right that we stand up for him. I started this, literally, when he came to my office -- I was moved. I work with parolees. People usually want to ostracize this particular population. Me working with him on the front lines and him coming to my office, this is not the first time I've worked with him. So I thought it was only right that I stand up for him."

"We're not protesting," Livingston continued. "This is not anti-NFL. This is not going against the police. What we're doing exactly is we're showing solidarity to the league on behalf of Colin Kaepernick. This is nothing planned by him. This is all me.
"But I have to say, Colin Kaepernick really moved me when he did that for our community. And so ... the reason why I chose [NFL headquarters] is the league needs to see that Colin is being supported. And that we're buying consumers and that our dollars matter and I don't think it's fair the way he's being treated by the league. I just want to make that very clear."


Kaepernick, who played for the 49ers from 2011-2016, began last season on the bench behind Blaine Gabbert, but was reinserted into the starting lineup in mid-October. When it was over, he had started 11 games and completed 59.2 percent of his passes with 16 touchdowns and four interceptions. He also rushed 69 times for 468 yards and two scores. But according to Football Outsiders' metrics, Kaepernick ranked 30th among all quarterbacks, just ahead of Case Keenum, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brock Osweiler and Jared Goff.

The Seahawks showed interest in Kaepernick in May, and the Ravens appeared to close to signing him earlier this month. Nothing materialized and Kaepernick is still looking for his next opportunity.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/s...ernick-in-nyc/

Does Kaepernick want starter money? http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/s...-rumors-060217

[redfriday]

Colin Kaepernick is like Hillary Clinton, they just wont go away!

[Chief Northman]

Originally Posted by ARROW2

This is clearly not about football. It's about stay in your place boy. A backup QB at the time took a knee to protest the murders of unarmed black people at the hands of law enforcement. Why does that make him a douche? The NFL doesn't require the players to stand. Encouraged but not required.

I have been a critic of his PLAY at times but this backup caliber QB, as you all are putting it, had more TDs and less INTs than Alex Smiff last year on a terrible team. So this hiding behind "He is not good enough" narrative is bullshit, plain and simple. This is a labor issue and the union should stand behind him or else the owners will take advantage of this lack of solidarity and exploit it.

Personally, I wouldn't have done it because I know how the media would blow it out of proportion and knowing that as a football player, I only have a limited amount of time to make my money.

Not good enough "narrative"? It is not a narrative. It is true.

Kaepernick's ability/talent does not come close to counterbalancing the negative backlash you would inherit by some in the locker room, the fanbase, etc. It would be perceived as a bad look by some, and progressive by others. Because the purist mentality still dominates this game (unlike the ridiculous NBA), I think the former would dominate. That means revenues down, a brand tarnished, and a headache a franchise can do without.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

His point is that 'you're fine' doesn't mean you won't still get sued.

It means you'll win, but it will still come at significant cost.

When we did layoffs a couple years back we were literally 'last in/first out' and the only black girl that got fired had been there for all of 2 weeks (of 15 people let go). And you guessed it - we get a demand letter a month later alleging discriminatory practices. Now we're a law firm so '**** off, we'll outlast you' was our response and she went away. But other employers get to hire attorneys and start spending money to deal with that bullshit.

The other 14....not a peep.

What you can legally do isn't the same as what you can do that ISN'T a time consuming pain in the ass.

Oh, an my stance on Kap is that I don't care one way or the other but man I do love how riled up the left gets every time another retread gets a job instead of him.

But that's a function of the civil courts being open and available to all, not a function of 'what you can and can't do.'

If you and 'zilla's argument is 'if you hire a black, best put up with their nonsense, because they'll sue you for anything that makes them unhappy,' you're free to make that argument. I'm trying to elide such cyncism by sticking to settled law.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Never in my life have I stood for the National Anthem and a flag was not present. Usually, it is held by a Veteran from one of the Armed Forces. Out of the hundreds of sporting events- from Little League to Professional sports- there is always a flag.

I am not sure how one can disrespect the National Anthem and all it stands for while not doing the same to the flag which is synonymous with the Anthem.

Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming;
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's re d glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:
Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

The song is About the flag and even mentions the flag.

Does that song come with a rulebook about behavior that is disrespectful to the flag? How many people in the stands sit, grab popcorn, etc.... It's not like he's turning away from the flag. He publicly said he had tons of respect for our armed forces and did not intend for his protest to be interpreted as that. It seems to me a lot of people are retroactively writing new rules as they go along because they don't agree with his politics. If someone kneeled before the anthem five years ago, say, to grieve a dead relative, nobody would have cared. Now people call it anti American, anti flag, and even anti armed forces?

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

The shirt says "Like minds think alike", which is equating Malcolm X to Casto.

Unless the implication was that Malcolm X was an oppressive murderer and dictator, it's a shirt intended to elevate Castro as some kind of 'hero of the people'.

I think this entire thing is almost entirely a creation of the media. Had they not made a big stink about him not standing, nobody gives a ****. Then he's asked a bunch of questions and he takes the bait. The media are the ones who will create a complete distraction, put him in the spotlight (even as a back up) and constantly make that the focus of whatever team he signs with. Coaches don't want that, and it's certainly not what he intended. I think both sides are fabricating malicious intent, which I'm just tired of.

The truth is that Kaep's black team-mates didn't like him very much (privileged half black guy raised by white folks, so he's not *really* black) and I think he just did it to win over his black team-mates (and was successful) and it blew up in his face in the public eye. I don't think he's a bad person or anything. I think he's a grandstander who belches bumper sticker slogans and overestimated his market value (because, you know, he voided his OWN contract).

Doesn't change the fact that he'll never play in Miami after the Castro thing for obvious reasons, and that's the place that had a recent opening. He may be a folk hero to rich leftists, but Cuban refugees aren't so fond.

Source?

[Grim]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Never in my life have I stood for the National Anthem and a flag was not present. Usually, it is held by a Veteran from one of the Armed Forces. Out of the hundreds of sporting events- from Little League to Professional sports- there is always a flag.

I am not sure how one can disrespect the National Anthem and all it stands for while not doing the same to the flag which is synonymous with the Anthem.

Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming;
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's re d glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:
Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

The song is About the flag and even mentions the flag.

It still doesn't need to be present. The song is about the USA, not the flag.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

But that's a function of the civil courts being open and available to all, not a function of 'what you can and can't do.'

If you and 'zilla's argument is 'if you hire a black, best put up with their nonsense, because they'll sue you for anything that makes them unhappy,' you're free to make that argument. I'm trying to elide such cyncism by sticking to settled law.

And I'm combating settled law with a reality check. It's not always easy to fire somebody even for performance issues, regardless of color. The paperwork, the severance, and the million hoops hr puts you through to prove the reasoning is sound so they don't get sued later. Still you can be sued or at least have your companys name smeared in the papers. Those matters are especially sensitive not only to black people, but other groups like disabled employees, older employees, gay employees... You think those groups won't put up a fight after being fired? I'm just talking reality here. Firing someone isn't easy and that is especially true if the party can claim discrimination,and they often do.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

And I'm combating settled law with a reality check. It's not always easy to fire somebody even for performance issues, regardless of color. The paperwork, the severance, and the million hoops hr puts you through to prove the reasoning is sound so they don't get sued later. Still you can be sued or at least have your companys name smeared in the papers. Those matters are especially sensitive not only to black people, but other groups like disabled employees, older employees, gay employees... You think those groups won't put up a fight after being fired? I'm just talking reality here. Firing someone isn't easy and that is especially true if the party can claim discrimination,and they often do.

Sounds like we need to erase those legislative protections and level the playing field?

My point, and it appears that you cop to it, is that you're not talking about legal rights so much as stereotypes about who will and won't fabricate a legal/procedural headache to protect their jobs rather than, . . . oh, off the top of my head. . . . performing their jobs in a mutually satisfactory manner.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Sounds like we need to erase those legislative protections and level the playing field?

My point, and it appears that you cop to it, is that you're not talking about legal rights so much as stereotypes about who will and won't fabricate a legal/procedural headache to protect their jobs rather than, . . . oh, off the top of my head. . . . performing their jobs in a mutually satisfactory manner.

It was a simple response to completely false comments that you can fire a black employee with the snap of a finger. Let alone employees of any color for expressing their politics. There are lawsuits across the country by employees fired because they support Trump as well.

I'm not commenting on the fairness of any of it. Just answering a simple question with a realistic answer.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It was a simple response to completely false comments that you can fire a black employee with the snap of a finger. Let alone employees of any color for expressing their politics. There are lawsuits across the country by employees fired because they support Trump as well.

I'm not commenting on the fairness of any of it. Just answering a simple question with a realistic answer.

How simply must I break this down for you?

Citizens can file a lawsuit for WHATEVER they wish.

That doesn't change the employment relationship under the law, which in many jurisdictions is at-will.

You're talking about a personality-driven reaction to being fired, regardless of legal merit or authority.

You might as well make the argument 'good luck firing a woman from your work, or she'll come back and take a baseball bat to your car.' [because, like a freedom to file suit, we have a freedom to own baseball bats]' or 'good luck firing a man from your work, or he'll come back and shoot up the workplace.' [because, like a freedom to file suit, we have a freedom to bear arms]

Just because YOU THINK a certain demographic should be treated with kid gloves in the workplace because they tend to go HAM when upset, doesn't make your position right or legally defensible.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Does that song come with a rulebook about behavior that is disrespectful to the flag? How many people in the stands sit, grab popcorn, etc.... It's not like he's turning away from the flag. He publicly said he had tons of respect for our armed forces and did not intend for his protest to be interpreted as that. It seems to me a lot of people are retroactively writing new rules as they go along because they don't agree with his politics. If someone kneeled before the anthem five years ago, say, to grieve a dead relative, nobody would have cared. Now people call it anti American, anti flag, and even anti armed forces?

Yes, it does. You stand up, take off your hat if you are wearing one, put your hand over your heart and sing if you like to. Anything else is disrespectful.

Did they not teach you that in grade school?

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

It is truly amazing how consistently you are on the wrong side of every single argument.

He really is

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

How simply must I break this down for you?

Citizens can file a lawsuit for WHATEVER they wish.

That doesn't change the employment relationship under the law, which in many jurisdictions is at-will.

You're talking about a personality-driven reaction to being fired, regardless of legal merit or authority.

You might as well make the argument 'good luck firing a woman from your work, or she'll come back and take a baseball bat to your car.' [because, like a freedom to file suit, we have a freedom to own baseball bats]' or 'good luck firing a man from your work, or he'll come back and shoot up the workplace.' [because, like a freedom to file suit, we have a freedom to bear arms]

Just because YOU THINK a certain demographic should be treated with kid gloves in the workplace because they tend to go HAM when upset, doesn't make your position right or legally defensible.

It's a simple response that you again obsess over the fine details. Is it easy to fire a black employee for supporting black lives matter. You can get into the legal semantics all you want. The simple response is "no." Not without repercussions.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by Grim

It still doesn't need to be present. The song is about the USA, not the flag.

False.

On a rainy September 13, 1814, British warships sent a downpour of shells and rockets onto Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor, relentlessly pounding the American fort for 25 hours. The bombardment, known as the Battle of Baltimore, came only weeks after the British had attacked Washington, D.C., burning the Capitol, the Treasury and the President's house. It was another chapter in the ongoing War of 1812.

RELATED CONTENT
Star-Spangled Banner Back on Display
A week earlier, Francis Scott Key, a 35-year-old American lawyer, had boarded the flagship of the British fleet on the Chesapeake Bay in hopes of persuading the British to release a friend who had recently been arrested. Key's tactics were successful, but because he and his companions had gained knowledge of the impending attack on Baltimore, the British did not let them go. They allowed the Americans to return to their own vessel but continued guarding them. Under their scrutiny, Key watched on September 13 as the barrage of Fort McHenry began eight miles away.

"It seemed as though mother earth had opened and was vomiting shot and shell in a sheet of fire and brimstone," Key wrote later. But when darkness arrived, Key saw only red erupting in the night sky. Given the scale of the attack, he was certain the British would win. The hours passed slowly, but in the clearing smoke of "the dawn's early light" on September 14, he saw the American flag—not the British Union Jack—flying over the fort, announcing an American victory.

Key put his thoughts on paper while still on board the ship, setting his words to the tune of a popular English song. His brother-in-law, commander of a militia at Fort McHenry, read Key's work and had it distributed under the name "Defence of Fort M'Henry." The Baltimore Patriot newspaper soon printed it, and within weeks, Key's poem, now called "The Star-Spangled Banner," appeared in print across the country, immortalizing his words—and forever naming the flag it celebrated.


Nearly two centuries later, the flag that inspired Key still survives, though fragile and worn by the years. To preserve this American icon, experts at the National Museum of American History recently completed an eight-year conservation treatment with funds from Polo Ralph Lauren, The Pew Charitable Trusts and the U.S. Congress. And when the museum reopens in summer 2008, the Star-Spangled Banner will be its centerpiece, displayed in its own state-of-the-art gallery.

"The Star-Spangled Banner is a symbol of American history that ranks with the Statue of Liberty and the Charters of Freedom," says Brent D. Glass, the museum's director. "The fact that it has been entrusted to the National Museum of American History is an honor."

Started in 1996, the Star-Spangled Banner preservation project—which includes the flag's conservation and the creation of its new display in the renovated museum—was planned with the help of historians, conservators, curators, engineers and organic scientists. With the construction of the conservation lab completed in 1999, conservators began their work. Over the next several years, they clipped 1.7 million stitches from the flag to remove a linen backing that had been added in 1914, lifted debris from the flag using dry cosmetic sponges and brushed it with an acetone-water mixture to remove soils embedded in fibers. Finally, they added a sheer polyester backing to help support the flag.

"Our goal was to extend [the flag's] usable lifetime," says Suzanne Thomassen-Krauss, the conservator for the project. The intent was never to make the flag look as it did when it first flew over Fort McHenry, she says. "We didn't want to change any of the history written on the artifact by stains and soil. Those marks tell the flag's story."

While the conservators worked, the public looked on. Over the years, more than 12 million people peered into the museum's glass conservation lab, watching the progress.

"The Star-Spangled Banner resonates with people in different ways, for different reasons," says Kathleen Kendrick, curator for the Star-Spangled Banner preservation project. "It's exciting to realize that you're looking at the very same flag that Francis Scott Key saw on that September morning in 1814. But the Star-Spangled Banner is more than an artifact—it's also a national symbol. It evokes powerful emotions and ideas about what it means to be an American."


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...aFvwsEg4sfD.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It's a simple response that you again obsess over the fine details. Is it easy to fire a black employee for supporting black lives matter. You can get into the legal semantics all you want. The simple response is "no." Not without repercussions.

Details matter.

You're trying to muddy the distinction between the legal rights of citizens under the law, and American citizen's inherent right to be an asshole and cause a stink.

As I said, if YOUR argument is that black people can be emotional and litigious when displeased, have the balls to stand behind the plain assertion.

If your argument is that there is a moral or legal reason to treat political acts on company time different under at-will presumption than any other displeasure, I disagree and have outlined why.