Paid Patriotism

Greetings ATS! Over the weekend I had a revelation and wrote a post for Disinfo. Tell me what you think.

While silent protests are spreading across the NFL and other sporting venues, the viewing base has grown largely irate. People have called Colin Kaepernick an “idiot” and an “uneducated coward.” Fox Sports’ own Clay Travis called Kaepernick a “#ing idiot” and said “his decision to not stand for the national anthem is an insult to anyone with a working brain.” Tomi Lahren spent a large segment of her show on Kaepernick saying he’s a “whiny, indulgent, attention-seeking crybaby.”

Yet, these reporters, and many other (obviously highly intelligent) angry Americans may be surprised to remember that it is a relatively new practice for the NFL teams to even be on the field during the national anthem. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed the practice began in 2009, adding “as you know, the NFL has a long tradition of patriotism. Players are encouraged but not required to stand for the anthem.”

However, the plot thickens. In a joint report titled “Tackling Paid Patriotism ,” senators John McCain and Jeff Flake uncovered that the NFL and other organizations were paid to promote patriotism for recruitment purposes, paid for by the military using taxpayer money.

“Along with sports fans across America, I was appalled to learn last month that many of the ceremonies honoring members of our armed services at NFL games are not actually being conducted out of a sense of patriotism, but for profit in the form of millions in taxpayer dollars going from the Department of Defense to wealthy NFL franchises,”

The report details blatant waste and abuse and may be little more than a “taxpayer-funded boondoggle,”

Unfortunately, contrary to the public statements made by DOD and the NFL, the majority of the contracts—72 of the 122 contracts we analyzed—clearly show that DOD paid for patriotic tributes at professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer games. These paid tributes included on-field color guard, enlistment and reenlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, ceremonial first pitches͕ and puck drops. The National Guard paid teams for the “opportunity” to sponsor military appreciation nights and to recognize its birthday. It paid the Buffalo Bills to sponsor its Salute to the Service game. DOD even paid teams for the “opportunity” to perform surprise welcome home promotions for troops returning from deployments and to recognize Wounded Warriors.

Meanwhile, the National Guard Bureau and Army National Guard announced a $100 million shortfall and experienced issues paying their own soldiers.

“The NFL raked in revenues totaling some $9.5 billion dollars last year,” McCain said. “The absolute least they can do to begin to make up for this misjudgment is return those taxpayer dollars to charities supporting our troops, veterans, and military families.”

The loudest opponents of these silent protests may also be surprised to learn our government has repeatedly cut services to veterans.

In 2015’s Veterans Affairs Funding Bill, the house appropriations subcommittee met with VA Secretary Bob McDonald to remove more than $1.4 billion in veteran services from President Obama’s proposed budget. Those cuts included more than $690 million earmarked for direct VA medical care and construction projects. It’s estimated that 70,000 veterans would be unable to receive proper care due to these cuts.

In a 2014 bill proposed by Bernie Sanders, the Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act, would have expanded healthcare and education for veterans. The bill was hijacked by Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans who attached an amendment to the bill which would have levied sanctions on Iran.

While arguing over the proposed amendments, Republicans took to the floor to raise concerns over the cost of the bill, where it was ultimately defeated.

How can we honestly be upset about the alleged disrespect for our troops and veterans by a few sports players not standing for the anthem, when we can’t even adequately support them? Our taxpayer dollars are going to the NFL, when they should be going to supporting our troops, both active and retired.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Good post!

Obviously we should take better care of our vets. But it is a travesty that our tax money goes to the NFL for promoting the troops. This is bread and circuses at its best.

These NFL owners make billions of dollars. If they want to be patriotic, they should pony up some of their own money.

But if we are going to give them tax money, then it should definitely stop if the NFL employees want to claim how oppressive the United States is. Lets see how much Goodell praises Kaepernick and his ilk when it costs the NFL millions of free dollars.

Is john McCain daft it's a draft tactic he doesn't say that they are soliciting citizens by advertising the DOD with their commercials of patriotism... the reason why I ask if he is daft is it sounds like he thinks the people are there to watch the DOD commercials and not the game itself and they owe the DOD for ALL of their profits...

That would be like Cheetos having a commercial during the Superbowl and expecting the NFL to pay for it because of their massive profits thinking they were due to peoples love of Cheetos.

It makes no god damned sense...

What is the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism? In American view Nationalism is different. Everyone else see America as Nationalists.

a reply to: makemap

Deflate gate*




*making sure patriotism wins every time wink wink

I've got four points here:

1) It's a game . . . so who really cares if someone stands for the anthem at it, I fought to give him the right to insult me . . . I don't care, as long as he realizes that fact.

2) Again, it's a game. I understand the reasoning behind recruiting, and that fans of NFL, NBA, NBL(?), and NASCAR are your baseline for recruiting . . . but take care of the ones who already joined first. Not to mention the gov is spending much more on contractors salaries than they are for soldiers' salaries.

3) The kid IS an idiot. I understand he is trying to make a statement for a hashtag cause, but if he was already standing for the anthem while this government was doing so much wrong against our citizens . . . why does he now decide to sit in protest of the less than 3% of people of a single profession of which are the only one within it whom don't represent the flag? Not to mention that he is mediocre at his profession (on the professional level anyway - i.e. he almost was cut). To my view it was likely a publicity stunt to garner attention (probably proposed by his agent, who should get a hefty bonus).

4) Why do we even need the anthem at a football game anyway? As I stated earlier . . . It's a game. Now, if Army, Navy, etc... were playing, I could understand. But the anthem in the NFL is nothing more to me than the team showing off its money by hiring the most popular current singer anyways.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Is john McCain daft it's a draft tactic he doesn't say that they are soliciting citizens by advertising the DOD with their commercials of patriotism... the reason why I ask if he is daft is it sounds like he thinks the people are there to watch the DOD commercials and not the game itself and they owe the DOD for ALL of their profits...

I understand what you are saying, but I think he is interpreting it as a contract. Which may actually hold some sway. After all IF (and that's a big if redrider) the government paid the NFL to show patriotism for recruiting purposes, and one of the NFL's agents (i.e. a player) does not follow suit and takes it upon themselves to break the contract, then yes the NFL would be in breach of a commercial contract. However, they would only be liable for a minute amount (probably a couple thousand dollars) each time the event happened. In which case, the NFL would probably quietly fine the perpetrator for the infraction at the same amount for which they were liable. Much the same as they used to (maybe still . . . don't know) do with equipment malfunctions (such as an untucked shirt).

a reply to: JDeLattre89

I know this is slightly off topic, but I wanted to add this about Kaepernick.

I would approach him with the more SJW progressive position. This would be what I would say to him. . (obviously tongue in cheek)

"You are right this country oppresses black people all over the place. But you know who else oppresses blacks, the NFL! It uses strong young black men and pays them a pittance, all the while old white men make billions of of their blood and sweat. It ignores the health consequences of the blacks when they are discarded. It won't allow blacks in positions of leadership. It is a new plantation. So Colin, its time for you and all of the other protesters to take your protest to the next level; quit the NFL plantation system!!

I mean you wouldn't actively enrich a racist organization like the NFL just to make a little money yourself, right? Give that racist money back to the NFL and make a true stance!"

a reply to: Grambler

true true!

a reply to: JDeLattre89

As far as I know no NFL players are government property, only enlisted soldiers are considered government property this is why when one attempts suicide they are arrested for attempted destruction of government property.

This is why the US is deemed a free country not the ideologies they use to control or seek order but because it does not and cannot ever own us in any way shape or form unless we sign a contract to be owned by it... but then that is not freedom but slavery and well thats why every single last person is supposed to be fighting for... to cease ownership of any kind to maintain that very spirit of freedom like it or not...

So the fellow was in fact exercising his right of freedom that every single veteran has ever fought for, and just what they defended his right to do it... seeing someone exercise freedom that so many people have fought and died for should actually make them proud.

Not angry that some damned charity does not give 100% of profits too and then expect the NFL to also pick up the tab for it's recruiting at those events?

Well... that is kinda the wrong way to be going about it government wise. It veils freedom as subversion and then demonizes those exercising the practice of it. Defeating anything that was fought for in the name of it.

Recall the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." speaking directly to the freedom of speech itself.

When we can't express any thought, concern or feelings or points of view then we cease to have the ability to understand each other and paradoxically that can give rise to the inability to listen to each other... creating the apparent need for a DOD in the first place.

a reply to: Grambler

I don't know guys, I kind of feel like I want people to be able to voice their opinions about our government what ever they may be, regardless of where they work and if they were on the clock or not. It actually seems more unpatriotic to stifle free speech than to endure and ignore someone not standing up for 2 minutes. I am not using the amendment as a catch all gotcha card or anything but it seems to fall under that category.

It's one thing to choose that moment to promote racist or militant opinions, that's not appropriate I don't think. This just doesn't bother me though. As far as I know they didn't conspire to have the DoD pay them my tax money while they showed their disrespect opinion statement or whatever it may be. I think it would be fine for most if not all govt employees chose a moment to make a statement about their displeasure in something their government has done or is doing.

Maybe I am missing something, I fully admit it's possible I don't watch football or news.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Your right. NFL players are not government property, for that matter neither are soldiers (that is just an old running joke). What the NFL players are . . . are employees under contract by the NFL to follow their rules and to obey them. As such, when they disobey the NFL's rules, they are subject to penalty by the NFL (thus the whole thing about they used to be fined for having untucked jerseys and socks that slid down. The only thing I said about their requirement to stand had more to do with the NFL.

So . . .

IF the NFL entered a contract with the US government to 'show' more patriotism in order to boost recruitment, THEN they can be held liable under contract laws for both major and minor infractions of the agreement. The example we have been talking about would be an example of a minor infraction of said agreement (which may or may not exist), and would the NFL would likely pass the burden to the offending player &/or team.

So yes he has the freedom to do whatever he likes. But just like any other person, if he uses that freedom to act in a way not approved of by his employer, there may be consequences.

This is a business arrangement, nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to buy votes and point of view nowadays. However who can blame people who sell all that because of a hard economic situation in their lives? And who are we to blame anyone?

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Those rules were to help prevent injury... does war ever do such a thing or keep that play in motion after the flag is raised?

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: JDeLattre89

Those rules were to help prevent injury... does war ever do such a thing or keep that play in motion after the flag is raised?

Huh?

What rules and what injury?

This point of view has nothing to do with patriotism or anything else, other than a contractual agreement.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

If you have no awareness to your own posts; I am curious if you expect others to be aware of what they say.

The tucked in jerseys and the pulled up socks are to prevent injury... war inflicts injury for a perceived injury in retaliation... the rule is to protect all players in the entire NFL the rule of war only protects one team that is patriotism and nationalism when one throws a flag another considers a foul play.

Not much left to be said...

You didn't quote what you were talking about and I therefore did not know what you were referring to.

The tucked in jerseys and the pulled up socks are to prevent injury... war inflicts injury for a perceived injury in retaliation... the rule is to protect all players in the entire NFL the rule of war only protects one team that is patriotism and nationalism when one throws a flag another considers a foul play.

Negative . . . these rules were put into place in order to give a better presentation of the game. They were put into place at the advent of televised games. But again the confusion, because I have no idea what you are talking about. Except for you, this thread has nothing to do with war (and technically there are no rules in war, only the winners and what they decide was fair). So, what does one have to do with the other? More importantly what does your question have to do with a contract between a nation and a corporation?

If you really want to get to the heart of it. Nobody is saying this guy can't express his freedom of speech in any way he wants while he is only representing himself, but when representing his company he has certain obligations. This of course is based on the assumption that there is a contract in place between the company and nation (which was my original theorem). It is the same concept of you going on facebook and publicly using your free speech to talk against your company policies. You would likely be fired for such action and reprimanded if not.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Um have you ever spoken with an NFL player? If you get the chance ask them how many times they have broken a finger or dislocated it reset after getting caught up in the equipment and after so many times just reset it themselves it has happened so often to keep play going.

How about those "socks" that are actually support equipment to prevent leg injury.

The rule is in place to protect the teams investment in the player not to look pretty if looking pretty was the point then dancing in the end zone would not receive fines.

The DOD wants to protect it's investment which is really our investment against tyranny and also trying to cease the spread of it, recruitment of fans is no big deal at any of these sporting events but expecting the events to foot the bill misses the goal. As it is a courtesy to have them there in the first place like any other paid sponsor.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: JDeLattre89

Um have you ever spoken with an NFL player? If you get the chance ask them how many times they have broken a finger or dislocated it reset after getting caught up in the equipment and after so many times just reset it themselves it has happened so often to keep play going.

How about those "socks" that are actually support equipment to prevent leg injury.

The rule is in place to protect the teams investment in the player not to look pretty if looking pretty was the point then dancing in the end zone would not receive fines.

The DOD wants to protect it's investment which is really our investment against tyranny and also trying to cease the spread of it, recruitment of fans is no big deal at any of these sporting events but expecting the events to foot the bill misses the goal. As it is a courtesy to have them there in the first place like any other paid sponsor.

Dawg I feel like I am reading two different conversations here. This is so confusing.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

The rule is in place to protect the teams investment in the player not to look pretty if looking pretty was the point then dancing in the end zone would not receive fines.

Not pretty, professional.

Now, this is the last time I will respond to you because I recognize that you are a lost cause who wants to make this about a completely different topic. If you want to talk about whether or not the players and soldiers are cared for . . . go start a thread. But this is about a business deal and their feelings have nothing to do with it.

Good Morrowmorn.