I wrote three pieces for Insiders this week, on the death of September callups, on Yoan Moncada, and on Alec Hansen (White Sox) and Alberto Tirado (Phillies). I also held a Klawchat on Thursday afternoon.
For Paste, I’m going to be reviewing a game a week for the rest of 2016. The latest review is of Mysterium, a fun cooperative game where one player is the ghost and must deliver clues in the form of “vision” cards to the other players. The base game is $36 on amazon, and there’s a new expansion called Hidden Signs that adds more cards.
And now, the links…
- Donald Trump bribed the Florida AG to stop an investigation into Trump University, paying the IRS a penalty earlier this year for violating its rules on donations from charitable groups to political campaigns.
- Forty years after questions first arose about its safety, triclosan (and similar antibacterial ingredients) have finally been banned by the FDA. How much damage have they already done in increasing antibiotic resistance or harming natural ecosystems that depend on bacterial activity?
- The longread of the week is the L.A. Times‘ six-part series (part six runs tomorrow) on the absolutely bonkers story of the framing of a PTA mom. It has to be read to be believed.
- Let’s talk Colin Kaepernick, shall we? The NY Times looked into the unnatural marriage of sports and patriotism. The Undefeated’s Domonique Foxworth argued such protests are inherently American. Bay Area sports columnist Marcus Thompson asks what Kaepernick’s critics have done to help veterans beyond standing? It’s a fair question; standing for an anthem or another song is as empty a gesture as you’ll find. And now the Santa Clara Police Union is threatening to stop working 49ers games unless the team puts Kaepernick in his place (my words, not theirs).
- If you’ve played Pandemic: Legacy or Risk: Legacy, you have game designer Rob Daviau to thank for the new format. His latest game, Seafall, is the first standalone legacy game he’s designed, and it comes out next month. I met Rob at GenCon – he’s a Red Sox fan, by the way – and am hoping to get a longer demo from him at WashingCon next weekend if my schedule permits. The game looks stunning.
- The Ringer is running a lot of content – I think a lot more than Grantland ever did – and quite a bit of it is must-reading. My favorite this week was the profile of deaf model, activist, and DWTS winner Nyle DiMarco, who is using his surprising fame to totally change the way deaf people interact with the rest of society (from both sides, that is).
- I’ve enjoyed a lot of the content coming out of VICE lately too, but the Columbia Journalism Review wrote a scathing piece on VICE mistreating its freelancers, including a lot of not paying them.
- WrkRiot, a Silicon Valley startup, has collapsed amid serious allegations that its founder committed fraud. What I find interesting about this is that anyone thought Silicon Valley would be immune to the kind of mountebanks that have populated startup-land since the internet bubble began twenty years ago.
- I knew none of the history of California City, a planned metropolis that never came to be, before reading mental floss‘ article on the state of the never-lived-in town north of Lancaster and east of Bakersfield.
- The College of St. Scholastica, a small Benedictine school in Minnesota, forbade one of its students to talk about her rape to classmates even though – or perhaps because – it happened in Ireland during a study abroad. The school also refused to help her deal with the Irish police. I’d like to know why her attacker wasn’t charged, something that isn’t mentioned in the article, which just implies that the Irish police dropped the ball (and maybe they did).
- Massachusetts prosecutors gave 19-year-old Ryan Crochetiere a plea deal where he’ll only get probation for sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl for a year. This came a day after another teenager in western Massachusetts got probation for sexually assaulting two unconscious classmates. What the fuck is wrong with prosecutors there? And is there any chance on earth that Crochetiere doesn’t reoffend?
- Gabon, which has been ruled by one family since 1967 (first the father, now the son), rigged an election and bombed opposition headquarters this week. This matters because those are real people getting killed, and, fine, because Gabon produces a lot of oil.
- That’s not the only African country in crisis; Burundi, located just south of Rwanda, is experiencing one of its own crises as its President is trying to turn himself into a dictator by evading term limits and violently suppressing the media. Not surprisingly, nearly 3% of the population has already fled to neighboring countries that are ill-equipped to handle the refugees.
- The trends on vaccine refusal are terrifying, and now the American Academy for Pediatrics support doctors who refuse to treat such kids. I’m good with this, because I don’t want my daughter near kids who aren’t vaccinated. The simplest solution remains for more states to follow California’s lead and require all schoolkids to be vaccinated unless they have valid medical exemptions.
- Bexar County – in Texas, of course – DA Nico LaHood outed himself as a vaccine-denier this week, citing Andrew Wakefield’s debunked study and fakeumentary Vaxxed in a rant LaHood posted on Facebook. It’s not LaHood’s first dive into conspiracy-theory bullshit as he had an even worse rant against Islam two months ago, calling it a “horrifically violent” religion and repeating the hoax that some Muslims tried to set up a “Sharia court” in Irving.
- China’s military buildup in the South China Sea, including building artificial islands to enhance their claim of sovereignty, has caused significant environmental damage, especially to coral reefs already suffering from global ocean acidification.
- Former NFL kicker Bjorn Nittmo has brain trauma from one devastating hit he suffered on the field, and is showing signs of CTE, living as a vagrant, abandoning his family years ago, and otherwise behaving irrationally. The NFL continues to deny the link between their sport and these traumatic brain injuries; NFL players suffered 199 concussions in 2015, and I assume NCAA and high school players suffered many more.
- Donald Trump’s political stances led multiple chefs to withdraw from or avoid putting a restaurant in his DC hotel.
- Trump spoke this past week about his desire to revive a program of mass deportation from the 1950s that was known – seriously – as Operation Wetback. He mentioned this in November as well, and at the time NPR broke down the real history of the deadly program, while Fusion gave even more grisly details. The New Republic‘s Jeet HEer went deeper on the topic in April. A subsequent Congressional investigation of the operation called conditions on the deportation vessels comparable to “an eighteenth-century slave ship.” I don’t agree with the call for mass deportations, but arguing for tighter immigration policies is a legitimate political stance. Wanting to starve, torture, or kill them, however, is not.
- An academic and trauma survivor wrote an eloquent defense of trigger warnings in the classroom.
- A McDonald’s employee in Needham, Massachusetts, got a wonderful sendoff after 32 years of working the fry station.
Keith what is your take on the Kaepernick stuff? It seems like a lot of people critizing him only care about the, as you called them, empty gestures. I dont really get the anti troop arguments being made, as i very much doubt Kaepernick wishes ill upon any troops.
I think the criticism of him is beyond ridiculous. He’s practicing civil disobedience in the quietest possible fashion. He hasn’t disrupted anything. His decision not to stand doesn’t affect any other person’s life in any way whatsoever. This is the mildest form of social protest. And the anthem/GBA have absolutely no place at sporting events anyway.
Good look by the SCPU. “We don’t like what one guy did, so we’ll put 70,000 people in jeopardy. “
On the Western MA rape/sexual assault cases, don’t paint them with the same brush. The Becker case was about the judge’s decision, not the prosecution, while the second case was a combination of prosecution and judge. Having worked with the office in the second case as a law enforcement officer, I can tell you that there is a mix of good and bad there; the DA himself is very political, while his 1st ADA used to be fantastic but was replaced by someone who is also very political a couple years ago. The office in general pushes convictions vs. aggressive prosecution, unfortunately, which hurts both sides (many people who shouldn’t plead guilty do because it’s a minimal sentence, but they still have the black mark on their record, while those who should be heavily punished are often not at all).
Thanks, Jeremy. So in the Crochetiere case, you’re saying the DA chose to get the check mark for the conviction rather than push for a sentence that (IMO) is in the public interest?
I don’t know what they did in that case (I’m not in WMass anymore, and don’t have connections in the DA’s office at this point), but that would fit what I know of the office in the past. It can be messy prosecuting these cases, and without physical evidence, which there wouldn’t be, there’s always the chance of a not guilty at trial; it wouldn’t even be remotely shocking if they took this for a win with either the thought that it would be politically disastrous to lose or that the victim/witness wasn’t going to look good on the stand. Why they didn’t make it a part of the plea deal that he has to register as a sex offender, I have no clue, and am astounded that they didn’t.
The estimated recidivism rate for sex offenders who molest girls (i.e., Crochetiere) is approximately 16.3% over 15 years. Note that this rate is based on new charges and convictions and likely underestimates the re-offense rate. http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html
The dumbest thing about the Trump bribe, was that if he had just cut the check from his corporate checkbook, it would have been “legit.”
I disagree wholeheartedly that standing/solemn attention for the national anthem is as “empty a gesture as you’ll find.” Now I would agree that far too many people haven’t taken nearly the amount of time they should to understand so much about how this country operates and its constitutional underpinnings and how that’s supposed to be a guarantee and protection of so many rights and freedoms; and therefore, some of the outward expression you see from those who haven’t invested that much in appreciating it all does appear kind of hollow. That said, while some of these “gestures” may seem empty on the surface, they do convey (in my opinion) a very deep meaning, understanding, and appreciation of societal organization and protocols and oftentimes a straightforward acknowledgement that you’re either in agreement with, support, and/or respect a certain set of ideas or that you do not agree, support, or respect the same.
Besides, it seems a little bizarre to me to question the motives and meaningfulness of those who doggedly insist on standing as a means of expressing support and extending respect yet praise Kaepernick for being so brave for sitting. If it’s such an empty gesture in the affirmative, does it really matter (i.e. it’s equally empty) when someone acts in the negative? By virtue of sitting, Kaepernick is acknowledging there’s something sacred and meaningful about the gesture and feels his cause is worthy enough to deviate from that norm.
Where exactly did I call Kaepernick “brave” for his actions?
Your equivalency, I would say, is a false one. Standing carries zero cost, while sitting (as we have seen) carries a high cost indeed. We know about the blowback Kaepernick has received, we may never know entirely how much he lost in terms of professional opportunities and/or endorsements. Though it is probably fair to say that, sans the sitdown, he’d be the QB of the Minnesota Vikings right now.
And it may be that some (many?) of the people who stand for the anthem have a deep understanding of what the flag means. Or, at least, a deep understanding as they define it. But I would agree with Keith that the act of standing itself is pretty empty since it takes literally two minutes and (as noted above) carries no costs. A more difficult, and more meaningful, way to demonstrate that someone knows what the flag represents would be to embrace Kaepernick’s right to sit, as #VeteransforKaepernick are doing. I find that most of the flag-wavers are not taking this position, however, which leads me to wonder how “deep” their understanding of the flag really is.
Where exactly did I say that you called what he was doing “brave”? I’m describing in my own words what’s taking place, and what I’m saying is practically indisputable. I stated that you “praised” him for his actions. I think by your comments here and on Twitter a strong case can be made that, at the very least, you’ve defended his actions, even if you fall just short of what might be considered “praising.” Now to the next part of that sentence:
Brave, definition
-demonstrating courage when faced with dealing with something dangerous or unpleasant
Regardless of his motive/intent and whether or not he’s right/wrong/appropriate/inappropriate to be doing what he is, he is, by his actions, undoubtedly fulfilling the criteria to be considered “brave” by courageously doing something very different from the vast majority of people and standing by those actions despite loud/harsh backlash from much of the general public, which is arguably somewhat unpleasant.
I can play word games too, but I prefer not and instead would like to focus on an honest, good-faith effort at a discussion. I’m not interested in getting into a drawn out “where did I say / do you have quote from me to back that up?” game of semantics, sophistry, and deflection. My statement/question was in response to an accurate representation of what you’ve demonstrated are your thoughts/feelings on this subject matter. I only ask that you either respond in kind or politely decline. Thank you.
By the way, you specifically said that I was praising Kaepernick for being “brave.” I don’t think I’ve praised him at all – merely defended his moral and legal right to do what he’s doing – but I never called him brave.
“…but I never called him brave.”
And I acknowledged as much and said they were my words and my description of his actions. That particular subject wasn’t particularly germane to the broader point I raised, which was your questioning of the meaningfulness of standing as a gesture in the affirmative in salute of the singing of the SSB and how that might relate to your assessment of him sitting in protest. And I also went out of my way to even say that saying what you said amounted to “praising” was maybe a step too far but that you clearly were defending his actions.
So, again, we sit in the same boat as before, with a little bit of bellyaching over specific word usage and quotes but you clearly evading the question/point I raised. I’ll take the hint that you’re unable or unwilling to elaborate on your initial commentary. No need to keep beating the dead horse.
The problem here is that you made a strawman argument from the start – that I was praising Kaepernick, which I don’t believe I’ve done here or in other media. I’ve defended his moral and legal right to do this, I’ve pointed out that jingoism at the ballpark irks me, and I’ve said his form of civil disobedience is the sort of thing we tend to ask of dissenters, but I don’t think I’ve praised him anywhere or even commented at all on the substance of his views.
As for the “motives” here, well, multiple people have now pointed out to you that you’re employing fallacious arguments and you seem to have decided that it’s all their problem and everyone else is just stupid.
“…decided that it’s all their problem and everyone else is just stupid.”
Where did I call anybody “stupid”? See, you’re doing the same thing that I’m supposedly doing (i.e. putting words in somebody else’s mouth). And you seem a bit defensive at what I’m supposedly doing it, so tell me why I shouldn’t be a little defensive when it’s coming from your end?
If you’re going to get perturbed and try and correct me over how I used “praised” and “brave” in addressing the topic when you didn’t use those exact words, I’d appreciate it if you not put words in my mouth (that I called anyone “stupid”) either.
“The problem here is that you made a strawman argument from the start…”
No, I didn’t. I know what a strawman is, and that’s not what’s happening here. A strawman is a deliberate attempt to change an opponent’s argument to a more easily refuted point to deliver a line of attack. Your premise in that is how I used the terms “praised” and “brave.” I said explicitly that when I used the word “brave,” that was MY description of his actions, not YOURS. I’m allowed to describe it how I see it, and I laid out what the definition of brave entails and how I felt it met that criteria. So you have no grounds to accuse me of distorting your argument by that word, because I own its use in my description. As for describing your words as “praising” him, I later pulled that back and acknowledged the terminology may have been just a little strong and that “defending” was possibly the better descriptor. Admittedly, though, there’s a little bit of a gray area where you escalate from “defending” something to “praising” it, and if you didn’t feel what you were doing rose to that level, I’m fine with it. I just gave MY initial impression. That said, had I been committed to the “fallacious” argument, I would have doubled-down on that and pressed you harder in that area. However, that was not my intent but rather to get you to elaborate more on the commentary about standing being an empty gesture. Yet the discussion kept turning back to the appropriate use of “praise” and “brave” and anything that went with it, even though I laid out clearly the intent behind those words (that I was willing to dial back “praise” to “defend” – which is a sentiment you owned – and that “brave” was MY description). It was obvious before and is patently obvious now there was no real desire on your part to elaborate on the sentiment I was trying to hone in on, so let’s just drop it and stop talking past each other.
I really had zero idea what you were asking in that initial post, because, even though you say you write in a way “that even a person with the average reading comprehension of the English language at a 5th grade level” could understand, I didn’t understand it – and I think my reading comprehension is okay. My advice to you, as someone who writes for a living, is to use fewer words. Your posts are long and tortuous, and their tone is offputting. Keeping them shorter and more neutral in tone would be more likely to produce the dialogue you seem to desire.
In the interim, others have explained why standing and declining to stand are not equivalent gestures; standing has no cost, while declining to do so has had a clear cost for Kaepernick and his employers. People stand as a matter of course, but unless you have a physical issue with standing, it has neither cost nor benefit. No one notices if you stand, but many people will notice if you don’t.
The “reading comprehension” dig was more specifically aimed at the argument that ensued when I felt Matt was being loose/careless in addressing free speech limitations and him making a claim that was patently false when read on its own.
Agreed that brevity is typically a good thing, and I’ll strive to go more in that direction in the future. That said, writing and speaking are key activities in my two professions (teaching at a university and consulting), and I can say that sometimes, if your audience isn’t “getting it” despite your “best efforts,” a robust and possibly even “tortuous” display of fact after fact after fact is about the only way to eventually get the job done. YMMV, however.
Hm. I teach at a university, too. And in my experience, if the audience isn’t “getting it,” that’s the professor’s fault.
If a few students struggle, or even a sizable minority (say 20-30%), then it could be on them. They weren’t listening properly, they didn’t do their homework, whatever. But if that percentage jumps above 30% (and, in fact, often if it jumps above 10% or 20%), I start to ask myself: How did I err here? How could I have explained this better?
“Hm. I teach at a university, too. And in my experience, if the audience isn’t “getting it,” that’s the professor’s fault.”
There’s certainly an element of truth to that; however, I only very rarely get into situations where even a handful of students aren’t “getting it” in my classes.
So it makes me wonder where the problem really lies when I have practically no trouble connecting to a room full of 19-to-23 year olds yet wind up having several “misfires” with three presumably educated, reasonable, and professional adults. Of course, the students rarely, if ever, make factually incorrect statements and behave in a deliberately obtuse manner, and the times they do, they are generally receptive to a critique of their approach.
“Your equivalency, I would say, is a false one. Standing carries zero cost, while sitting (as we have seen) carries a high cost indeed.”
No, there is no false equivalency, and what I’m addressing is precisely the point. If standing is to be considered a meaning less gesture, then any other action (namely, sitting) should be as well. If there is no inherent value in standing and what that supposedly demonstrates (not saying I agree or it’s correctly approached by most people), then it’s completely meaningless to sit as well.
Mark, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is counterproductive at best to suggest that the only meaningful and mindful response to the playing of the NA is to sit down for it. I stand for it, but it is a conscious and considered choice, every time.
You seem to be hung up on the notion that because both standing and sitting involve bodily movement, they are the same thing. That is just not true. Imagine these four possibilities for what you might do with your right hand during the anthem:
1. Touch your right shoulder
2. Salute
3. Do a black power salute
4. Do a Nazi salute
Do you think that these would be equally meaningful? After all, they all involve doing something with your right hand.
As to @sansho1, I conceded that standing for the flag might very well be mindful. But is it really all that meaningful, when done with 40,000 other people, many of whom feel they are required to stand?
“You seem to be hung up on the notion that because both standing and sitting involve bodily movement, they are the same thing.”
Nowhere did I insinuate that was the case. You’re wandering off onto a tangent and/or addressing this from a completely different angle. I’m merely speaking to the perceived value of the gesture and how, if there’s to be something worthy by sitting or demonstrating some other level of defiance, one must acknowledge that there’s some level of value in standing or otherwise behaving in the affirmative.
Since we’re already in different parts of the ballpark, I’m not going to put forth the kind of effort it would take to try and meet up somewhere in the same section so that we’re not talking past each other. So consider this line of the conversation closed from my standpoint.
“And again, pretending I meant that ALL speech is okay is a strawman. I recognize that some speech is prohibited.”
Sorry I’m just now getting to this part. Should have read all the way through the first time…..
No, this is NOT an example of a strawman. I’m only responding to your EXACT quote. You didn’t say anything upthread about a recognition of certain limitations. You said he can say “whatever he wants.” Period. I can only respond to what you said, and that’s what I did. It’s not incumbent upon me to read your mind and speculate about what other assumptions may or not be behind your statements. You have to state them clearly or otherwise I have to take the exact words you utter strictly at face value. Don’t put this back on me. It was your mistake on the careless word choice. So don’t try and “strawman” me over your inability to make a point clearly. If you understood there are some limitations to speech, say so.
It’s not that standing for the flag cannot be a mindful act of one’s own agency with specific motivations behind it. It’s that standing for the flag is a normal action, so normal that many sports fans are conditioned/socialized to do so even without the PA requesting it. So, when someone does something that deviates from that normative response (e.g. remaining seated or turning one’s back or kneeling or, to be extreme, spitting and cursing or jumping up and down or running wind sprints), it is a more noteworthy (whether good or bad) gesture.
Keith: While it is OK for Kaepernick to express his rights by not standing for the anthem. He does not have the right to commit blood libel against every law enforcement officer in America in the name of Black Lives Matter. Almost all of the cases that Black Lives Matter protests are justified uses of force by officers attacked by men who are trying to grab the officers’ guns. He talks about officers only having six months of training versus the 8 years of attorneys. He doesn’t realize that officers have a lifetime of training, just like any other profession. Kaepernick should attend a civilian police academy and learn more about the profession and the training of officers before he damns them all as untrained racists.
Frank, first of all, Kaepernick does in fact have the right to say whatever he wants about law enforcement officers. He has that right.
But next, in fact he has not said what you say he said, and neither has the Black Lives Matter movement. It is a complete strawman to claim they allege EVERY law enforcement officer is an untrained racist. The concern is with the behavior of many officers, and with the country’s reaction to that behavior.
Also, I understand Kaepernick has friends and family members (uncles?) who are police officers. So I expect you’re wrong about his need to learn more about the profession. Your claim that almost all of the cases of concern are justified uses of force is, at best, a contested claim. It is certainly not obvious on the facts.
And finally, I had to Google “blood libel”. Do you just mean a really mean form of libel, with the word blood in front to sound scarier? Or have I missed another meaning of that? Because otherwise, I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
“Frank, first of all, Kaepernick does in fact have the right to say whatever he wants about law enforcement officers. He has that right.”
No. No no no, a thousand times no. You do not have the right to say whatever you want about anybody. That is not a protected right. See libel/slander laws. This is elementary legal stuff with regard to interpreting our constitutional protections with regard to free speech.
That’s silly. Libel laws do not protect against hurt feelings. A statement that police should stop killing unarmed black people is absolutely protected speech, even if you disagree that it’s as bad as some people believe. That’s not libel or slander. Nothing Kaepernick has said even remotely approaches libel or slander. And again, pretending I meant that ALL speech is okay is a strawman. I recognize that some speech is prohibited. But “sitting” and “explaining the reason for sitting” is not that speech.
@Frank and @Mark: As Matt observes, you are incorrect about defamation law.
It is true that certain types of speech are not protected. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You cannot make someone fear for their lives. You can’t say whatever you want to your boss. And so forth.
However, the bar for libel or slander is very high, indeed. Essentially, you have to:
1. Make a false statement of fact (not opinion)
2. Know that fact was false, or show a reckless disregard for trying to discover the truth
3. Communicate that false information to a third party
4. Damage the other person in a way that can be directly linked to the defamatory statement
It is very nearly impossible, given these standards, to libel a group. Particularly a large, faceless group of public individuals like “the police” or “members of Congress” or “the Republican Party” or “Hollywood.”
Kaepernick’s assertions were clearly statements of opinion, and so fail test #1. That renders test #2 irrelevant. And there’s no way that some specific officer could claim that Kaepernick’s words did material harm, so #4 fails as well. In other words, except for communicating this thoughts to a third party (#3), Kaepernick wasn’t even in the ballpark (the football stadium?) of libel.
Over and above the four-pronged test is the extra protection given to political speech, which Kaepernick’s statements undoubtedly constitute. Politically unpopular speech is at the head of the class of that which is to be protected.
“That’s silly. Libel laws do not protect against hurt feelings. A statement that police should stop killing unarmed black people is absolutely protected speech, even if you disagree that it’s as bad as some people believe. That’s not libel or slander.”
That’s NOT what you said, nor is that did I imply that. You’re moving the goalposts. You said:
“Kaepernick does in fact have the right to say whatever he wants about law enforcement officers. He has that right.”
I was addressing THAT particular line, not anything specific he may have said (i.e. that police should stop killing unarmed black people….which I would wholeheartedly agree is protected speech). You specifically stated he can say “whatever he wants about law enforcement officers.” I’m re-quoting twice in a very short space because I think it’s important you understand fully what you’ve said and what I’m responding to so you don’t try and pull another slimy trick and redirect with a different point. Kaepernick has a very WIDE latitude with regard to the rights he has to say things about most people, including law enforcement officers; however, he DOES NOT have the right to say “whatever he wants,” which implies “anything goes.” There are things he can say that should NOT be allowed to say by law.
Should Kaepernick stand up and proclaim, “Law enforcement officers are committing genocide against the black population, so we should all rise up against them and kill every single member of every single law enforcement agency to take them down before they take us out first,” would you say THAT’s protected speech? By your first statement – “whatever he wants” (I’m going to keep quoting it so that you can understand/comprehend the words you use so maybe you’ll do better next time) – you are clearly saying that would be an okay statement by him.
“@Frank and @Mark: As Matt observes, you are incorrect about defamation law.”
No, I’m not incorrect because I made no mention or judgement on a specific application of it. I merely stated that defamation law exists as a check against somebody saying “whatever they want” because some people may WANT to say SOMETHING that is untruthful and is intended to bring harm or danger on someone else. In no way am I addressing “hurt feelings” or anything like that. A claim was put out that Kaepernick can say “whatever he wants” and I merely stated that is not the case. Everything I’ve said has been factually correct. You two have chosen to read more into what I’ve said than what I’ve actually said, to presumably claim the moral high ground. All I said was that Kaepernick can’t simply say “whatever he wants,” at least not without legal consequences. I did NOT say that anything he’s said thus far crossed that threshold, just responding to Matt’s very careless statement above.
I did indeed write that he can say whatever he wants, but I intended that to be read in context. I was responding to, “He does not have the right to commit blood libel against every law enforcement officer in America in the name of Black Lives Matter.” It feels like you’re taking it out of context (four times). I wrote it in context of a discussion about his actual comments, not in context of a law school class on free speech.
Thanks so much for the education, but I don’t think I’ll do better next time. I’ll trust Keith’s readers to read me in context and pick on a few words of what I wrote. I’m not required to state all assumptions and clarify all exceptions to my statements. If I’m misunderstood, I’ll have to clarify. But I’m not going to draft a comment on a blog so as to avoid all potential for misinterpretation.
So I think were good. We agree on the law, and (i think) we agree that Kaepernick need not fear legal reprisal for sitting down and stating an opinion. And if he yells “fire” at a police officer in a crowded theater, he’ll have a problem. The rest is just fighting to make sure we’re not seen as wrong. I’m not interested in that fight.
Sorry, that should be “NOT pick on a few words…”
@Mark: By preceding your assertion with a direct quote, it was HEAVILY implied that you were accusing Kaepernick of slander. Did you really think that Matt, or I, or anyone else here was unaware that not all forms of speech are protected, and needed that to be pointed out?
I will also observe that with at least three posters here–me, Keith, and Matt–you’ve posted something, we’ve responded, and you’ve proceeded to make the argument that we’re wrong because we responded to something other than what you wrote. Why do you think that keeps happening?
“It feels like you’re taking it out of context (four times). I wrote it in context of a discussion about his actual comments, not in context of a law school class on free speech.”
Fair enough, though I’d caution that context can sometimes be a bit subjective and/or ambiguous and that it’s never a wise idea to make statements that, when read alone, are technically incorrect especially when they’re indisputably so. I’ll concede that in the back-and-forth with CB responding to me, Frank chiming in, and you jumping into the fray, it was easy for there to be something to be “lost in translation” as multiple people weighed in from differing angles.
“Thanks so much for the education, but I don’t think I’ll do better next time. I’ll trust Keith’s readers to read me in context and pick on a few words of what I wrote. I’m not required to state all assumptions and clarify all exceptions to my statements.”
That speaks more about your character and your diligence in exercising good communication skills or lack thereof than any failing on my part. You’re playing the “in context” card, and I can vaguely see your point, but to me you’re just trying to cover your butt after being called out for making an indisputably incorrect statement.
Maybe an analogous discussion would help explain where I’m coming from. Put it this way, let’s say we’re doing the follow-up of a baseball game where Phil Cuzzi ejects Bryce Harper from play simply for seeing Bryce roll his eyes at one of his calls. There’s a discussion about how ridiculous the move by Cuzzi is and how it’s an egregious overstep of his umpiring authority. Then somebody weighs in that there is a level of engagement and behavior from a player beyond which an umpire is justified in making the ejection. Then someone responds with, “Umpires never have the right to eject a player. A player can do anything he wants and should not be under threat of an ejection.” Then there’s a response to that comment along the lines of, “Umm, there’s plenty of things a player can do to warrant ejection. If a player were to shove or punch an umpire, regardless of how bad a call was, that is behavior that certainly warrants an ejection or some kind of stiff punishment.” Then the response comes back, “Well, I was only speaking in context of Bryce Harper and what he did and how that particular incident didn’t warrant an ejection. Of course I didn’t mean a player can do ANYTHING without being ejected from play. Strawman!!!” That was you in that instance. Again, while context may give you some latitude in how you present something, never state something that would be considered patently false when read alone.
I’m going to call it, Mark. We’ve long ago abandoned the Kaepernick discussion. I’m okay if you (and anyone else who agrees with you) think I’m too imprecise to be a successful internet commenter. We’re past the chance to convince each other of anything. Best of luck.
“By preceding your assertion with a direct quote, it was HEAVILY implied that you were accusing Kaepernick of slander.”
No, awful reading comprehension on your part. It was a direct quote from Matt that was patently false. He stated CK can say “anything he wants.” He didn’t state that as a matter of addressing something specific that had been said already but in a way to be interpreted he was making an assessment of anything CK might say in the future. I said no, there are cases where speech crosses a line that warrants consequences.
“Did you really think that Matt, or I, or anyone else here was unaware that not all forms of speech are protected, and needed that to be pointed out?”
You’re a stranger on the internet. Why is it incumbent upon me to assume you have a certain level of intelligence or understanding about free speech, other constitutional issues, or anything else? Would you really give me the same benefit of the doubt, particularly if I made a statement that, when read alone, was patently false and/or suggested I did not have a complete understanding of the issues? Don’t be absurd. Either do a better job of communicating your thoughts or at least stand by your statements and how you may have erred in presenting them and try and clarify. Don’t make me the bad guy for not assuming something about you.
“I will also observe that with at least three posters here–me, Keith, and Matt–you’ve posted something, we’ve responded, and you’ve proceeded to make the argument that we’re wrong because we responded to something other than what you wrote.”
I’ve been very clear in the thoughts I’ve communicated, but much of what I’ve gotten from you guys has been semantics about quotes and/or what was actually said or is an argument about the underlying “context.” Communicate properly and speak directly on the subject matter without leaning on the crutch of context and we shouldn’t have a problem.
“Why do you think that keeps happening?”
I dunno….because you guys are wannabe sophists and this is an echo chamber?
because you guys are wannabe sophists and this is an echo chamber?
Uncalled for.
When multiple people who don’t even know each other tell you you’re arguing in bad faith, that indicates that you’re doing something wrong. Perhaps it’s as small as writing in an unclear fashion, but it ain’t us.
@Mark: I just wanted to let you know that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, likely in the east. Since you’re an anonymous guy on the Internet, I can’t be sure you know that, so I feel I had better point it out.
In any case, you’re working very, very hard to make these misunderstandings my fault, and Matt’s fault, and Keith’s fault. Wannabe sophists? Echo chamber? Interesting, but Occam’s razor leads me to a different answer.
I do think Matt has the right of it, though. You’re not listening–if you ever were–so there’s no point in continuing the discussion. If it pleases you to think that you’ve gotten the best of dopey old CB–anonymous guy on the Internet–then I extend my congratulations.
“When multiple people…”
Argumentum ad populum much? So I’m wrong simply because there are three of you and one of me? Thanks. That confirms a few of my suspicions about the motives here.
“….who don’t even know each other tell you you’re arguing in bad faith, that indicates that you’re doing something wrong.”
No, that’s not what’s happened. I’ve made factual claims that people have tiptoed around like a ballerina. Matt made a clear and direct statement that I requited and dissected in a way that even a person with the average reading comprehension of the English language at a 5th grade level would understand yet he cried foul and said his statements needed context. Then CB chimed in and basically said I’m supposed to give the benefit of the doubt and assume strangers on the internet are well versed in free speech laws even if I haven’t seen them utter one thing to actually demonstrate said knowledge. I simply state that I don’t expect any assumptions be made on my behalf nor do I expect any. How is that or anything else I’ve said resemble “arguing in bad faith.”
“…but it ain’t us.”
You can say this to make yourself feel better, but it doesn’t make it so. Again, you’re trotting out what you see as the representative opinion of three people (vs. one) who clearly have an incentive and motive to keep up appearances for each other. I’d welcome any truly unbiased third party – several in fact – to come in and weigh in on my commentary and speak for themselves as to how grounded they see me and the points I’m making. Pardon me if I don’t yield and genuflect to your authority just because this is your blog and you think that, by fiat, gives you some power over declaring what is and isn’t the truth.
” I just wanted to let you know that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, likely in the east. Since you’re an anonymous guy on the Internet, I can’t be sure you know that, so I feel I had better point it out.”
Now see, there’s an example of a false equivalence you tried to pin on me earlier. I know you’re just being sarcastic to make a point, but the big difference here is that I’ve never made a comment about the mechanics of a sunrise. If I had made a statement about sunrises – in the same vein as Matt’s about someone being allowed to say “whatever they want” – I don’t think it unreasonable for you to assume that maybe I didn’t know the sun would actually rise in the east.
I wonder how much ink* Mark would spill over something that’s actually of consequence in this conversation. OK, Kaep can’t say literally anything, such as threatening to murder people. And…?
*figuratively speaking, before you spend 10,000 words screaming you did not use literal ink for your comments
You’re going to WashingCon? I’ll look for you there, if you don’t mind some fan time! And in case you haven’t checked the schedule, Daviau’s on a panel about “The Future of Game Design” with Jason Matthews (of Twilight Struggle) — should be fascinating.
I’m glad that a few of the commenters mentioned that when they stand for the National Anthem, it is not simply by rote. I’m afraid that it is for most people. That said, I strongly feel that socially coerced displays of nationalism are the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, and as such are completely un-American (and don’t fucking get me started on the Pledge of Allegiance in schools).
A riddle to be solved: I regularly went to my high school’s football games for 5 years. I didn’t stand for the national anthem at any of our home games. Why not?
1. They didn’t play it, since you went to high school in Canada.
2. You were in the band, and you played an instrument, like drums, that required sitting.
3. You have a habit of arriving at halftime.
4. You prefer to stand on your head.
5. You’re deaf, and cannot hear when the song is playing.
6. You’re the opposite of one of those guys at concerts who wants to stand when everyone else wants to sit.
7. You’re 105 years old, having been born in 1911, and you graduated high school before the national anthem became the national anthem in 1931.
Did I get it?
I like all of those answers, especially 4 through 7.
But, yep, #2 is right. I played drums in the band.
You lost your legs in a lion attack?
I’ve taught in independent schools my entire career. PreK and K. At my last school — a more traditional one — the Pledge was a loose expectation in classrooms and quasi-required at asemblies (very few of which we attended). I never have and never will perform the Pledge with my students. Requiring young children to pledge allegiance to a piece of fabric is appalling to me. The kids literaly have no idea what they are saying.
The anthem is no better. How many in the stadium know what it means? Know its history? Know the signifigance of standing? If you want to stand, by all means do… Regardless of your rationale. Power to you! And if you don’t want to stand, likewise. The response to Kaep indicates an expectation of standing. Why? Where does this expectation eminate from? It is a song. Words and music. Why should we expect free-thinking citizens to stand for a song?
It was a long week at the Hot Takes Grill, with only the reddest of red meats served; questioning one player’s patriotism and their views on police officers and a little bit of Tim Tebow’s baseball “future”. A particular favorite of mine were talking heads saying “I think Kaepernick’s message about African Americans is being lost” before returning to the debate of standing or sitting during the national anthem.
I just don’t see why we have to play the national anthem before every game. I’ve been to a number of professional sporting events (club level, not internationals) over in Europe and they don’t play their national anthems before every game. Why can’t we just limit playing it to major, national holidays? Say Presidents Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Veterans Day? If you want a couple more days, have at it. It’s never going to happen, of course.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t believe this stuff has any real place at the ballpark. I often sit through GBA. I try to walk to my seat after the anthem. I’m there to work, and even if I were simply there as a fan, I’d be there for the sporting event, not for socially coerced displays of patriotism.
I agree with the notion that it is entirely Kaepernick’s right to do whatever he wants during the national anthem. In fact, I would defend the notion that it is profoundly American to exercise this right.
But Keith also brings up another issue of needless nationalism in Baseball: the addition of GBA to the 7th inning stretch. This has really irked me in the post 9-11 baseball world.
There was a specific time and place in 2001 when that song helped heal and nurture people. Fine. I get that.
That moment passed but for some reason GBA continued to supersede, and sometimes supplant, a much older and honorable tradition.
There is no more profoundly American song than Take Me Out To The Ballgame. It celebrates the joy and freedom of congregating together peacefully… and for pleasure… to watch a sport. It is good-natured and fun.
There was no good reason to permanently supersede it after 2001. And by going GBA first, much of the fun in singing Take Me Out To The Ballgame is simply squashed.
But most of all, GBA is not our national anthem yet it gets the Anthem Treatment! “Please stand.” “Remove your caps.” Also, it is basically a prayer that is sung to music. And yet people get angry when it is not treated with the same honor as the national anthem? Bullshit.
I’d much rather celebrate America by singing Take Me Out To The Ballgame… and people can stretch and join in,or sit and chat with their friends, or go to the bathroom, or buy another beer for all I care… THAT brief exercise of freedom of choice is far more American than coercing everyone to sing together in prayer.
It has always seemed odd to be to include displays of nationalism ahead of games. To take a break in the middle of a baseball game to make time for a second one seems more than a touch excessive.
Preach, Brother Bob. I think 15 years qualifies as a decent interval.
The FDA did not outright ban triclosan or other antibacterials, as the ruling does not apply to hand sanitizers.