K-9

The military isn't a very big advertiser compared to others so I'd be reluctant to say it was the military exercising that kind of influence. But in looking at the industries on the list of top 10 advertisers and their own exploitation of the flag and patriotic identification in their own advertising, yeah, I can see the league listening if they raised a stink. And it's not like the league is gonna wait for them to complain, anyway. The anthem policy is all about protecting their revenues.

People tune in to get their opinions. Although they both have strong backgrounds in journalism and maintain sources, they don't break a lot of news. They are paid to interpret and comment. Nothing more.

That's not a report. That's op/ed. If people can't filter simple reports and make up their own minds without a panel of talking heads to tell them how to think, that's pitiful. But I don't believe the majority of people are that helpless.

What constitutes much? There have been several reports about the various anthem policies of teams in other sports.

What would be a neutral, non-inflammatory way? A simple reporting of the facts should suffice. As in "so and so chose to stay in the locker room during the playing of the national anthem today. Players and team officials refused to comment." Unfortunately, many people can't discern the difference between a report and an op/ed piece or, worse, don't even want to given the polarized viewpoints on any particular subject. Many out there would take that simple report as being anti-league when it didn't lean one way or the other, for example.

Wouldn't they have done that last year when this first blew up? The NFL is powerful, but they can't dictate editorial policy to that extent. The optic of a major media outlet being told what and what not to report on is not a good one. Not even the NFL is that stupid.

I'd add giant, field-size flags, color guards, camo gear, etc. The military spends MILLIONS on this kind of advertising. Remember how outraged we were a few years ago when we found that out; that it wasn't a genuine outpouring of respect and a genuine display of patriotic love for our country? I was wrong when I suggested they were pushing an agenda. It's much more insipid than that.

Devil's advocate question: Does the NFL use the anthem during "broadcast time" to push any agenda?

Will the league put out memos to every other media outlet as well?

Inflammatory in their ignorance. Such fluidity of prose. So, you're not angry. OK, then what? Certainly, the people defending the actions of the protesting players has struck some kind of emotion in you so how would you label it? Anyway, my question remains; is it the fact that people don't have an appreciation for the difference between their guaranteed rights granted by the Constitution vs. what behaviors a private employer can mandate to its employees really the reason for your reaction (however you want to label it)?

I'm curious as to whether the NFL's new policy regarding the anthem will have the desired outcome of putting the issue to rest as the media will continue to report on who is deciding to stay in the locker room. Will those players be any less vilified by those that find their protests reprehensible? A very small percentage of players actually participated in the kneeling protests and look at the outrage that engendered. By giving the players the option to stay in the locker room, I think there is the potential for MORE players to do that than actually took a knee during the anthem. It won't be long before not showing up for the anthem will be even worse that kneeling for it.

The points are often conflated due to the overlying principle at the crux of the argument; the right to protest or not. Is it really a surprise that people may not appreciate that private companies are allowed to mandate employee behavior? Is that what really angers you about the issue; that people don't have that understanding? Yes, people are allowed to be hypocrites. It would be hell for so many if that weren't so. As this debate has clearly illustrated.

I'm not confusing our government with the NFL's right as a private employer to mandate employee behaviors. I mentioned our government as part of a larger point, that's all. Oh, and I'm not screaming. But my antennae is up for the off the charts hypocrisy surrounding this issue.

What am I exaggerating here? That there is no end to the merchandising of the American flag for monetary gain? That can't be overstated enough.

And isn't that the whole fricken point? You, me, and ESPECIALLY our government don't have a right to mandate such behavior or decide what is and what isn't a correct display of love for our country. Glad you're a man of principle that defines his own meaning and behaviors. That's laudable. But you don't get to tell everyone else they are wrong because they differ. Bottom line for me is, a symbol should NEVER mean more than the right it represents.

Good point, here. These same yahoos decrying such disrespect for our flag, will have no problem wearing their flag underwear, flag socks, flag speedos, etc., while picnicking on their flag blankets and drinking beer out of their flag cozies. Let us now await the replies from those who claim that if it's not made from an actual flag, then it's not disrespectful of the flag in the least; that it's perfectly OK to wear it, sit on it, or even make toilet paper out of it.

If my moniker had anything to do with the association between dogs and K-9s, I'd find even funnier. But it doesn't so I can only give it a slight chuckle. And while I don't poop on newspaper, I have used Bucky's column to wipe afterwards.

As if the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the start of the Gulf War were the same as any other time. As if the thousands of times the anthem has been played at sporting events before and since those events rose to the same level of attached emotion and feeling of national pride. Can you honestly tell me you've experienced that exact level of high emotion EVERY time you've heard the anthem before or after those events? Do you get out of your chair at home to stand EVERY time you hear it on television before a game? People are free to "feel" whatever they want when hearing that song. From pride when it's played while welcoming a returning veteran home to revulsion when seeing it played at a white supremacists rally and everything in between. Regardless, the playing of the anthem commands a certain solemnity. And playing it at raucous sporting events cheapens it far more often than it inspires people. Especially with the NFL and other sports leagues getting paid big money to stage such phony displays to advertise for the military.

Wrong. There has been debate on the subject for decades.

The playing of the national anthem before sporting events violates the solemnity of the the anthem itself. It serves to cheapen rather than glorify. And the NFL further cheapens it by accepting money to stage these phony displays of "patriotism." Sinclair Lewis was right.

I disagree. No creature on earth poops more happily than when its pooping on a Gleason column. Just can't achieve the same level of satisfaction. It is known.

Darn. I'm running out of columns to line the bird cage with .

How the F can anyone, ANYONE, screw up the Browns?

I’d rather be lucky than good as the old saying goes.

Screw that bum. I wouldn’t want that trash on my team, regardless.