In light of the way that Colin Kaepernick was treated by the NFL- essentially forced out of the league- can one put a shred of confidence in the sincerity of Roger Goodell when he says:

“The NFL family is greatly saddened by the tragic events across our country,” Goodell said in the statement. “The protesters’ reactions to these incidents reflect the pain, anger and frustration that so many of us feel.

“Our deepest condolences go out to the family of Mr. George Floyd and to those who have lost loved ones, including the families of Ms. Breonna Taylor in Louisville, and Mr. Ahmaud Arbery, the cousin of Tracy Walker of the Detroit Lions.

“As current events dramatically underscore, there remains much more to do as a country and as a league. These tragedies inform the NFL’s commitment and our ongoing efforts. There remains an urgent need for action. We recognize the power of our platform in communities and as part of the fabric of American society. We embrace that responsibility and are committed to continuing the important work to address these systemic issues together with our players, clubs and partners.” NYPost.com

Reactions so far do not give Goodell any credibility.

Goodell is an lying sack of shit.

 

 

 

Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

I empathize, but rather than pointing fingers, let's celebrate that the Cause has become so powerful that even these motherfuckers are joining the wave. Now it is time to add, not to divide.

1 hour ago, Latbear4blk said:

I empathize, but rather than pointing fingers, let's celebrate that the Cause has become so powerful that even these motherfuckers are joining the wave. Now it is time to add, not to divide.

Reminding those officials of their past cynical hypocrisy, instead of lauding them for this patting themselves on the back for this new hypocritical ‘conversion’, might help the cause, and the collective national memory, a little more.

Like some others here, I don’t believe they mean a word of what they say.

14 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

Reminding those officials of their past cynical hypocrisy, instead of lauding them for this patting themselves on the back for this new hypocritical ‘conversion’, might help the cause, and the collective national memory, a little more.

Like some others here, I don’t believe they mean a word of what they say.

It is called tactical alliances. Who said anything about believing their support is sincere? 

Edited June 1, 20206 yr by Latbear4blk

14 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

It is called tactical alliances. Who said anything about believing their support is sincere? 

I’m not sure. Some concern about pollution of motive messing things up. I could well be wrong about that, but something to consider in its longer-term societal consequences. We have seen this many times before.

And it deeply infected what followed. See only Weimar Germany. And what came after.

You wouldn't ally with tassojunior, but now latbear4blk wants to ally with Roger Goodell! Ha!

I would ally with anyone (in the real world) to attain a tactical goal.

7 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

I would ally with anyone (in the real world) to attain a tactical goal.

That seems very dangerous.

Pragmatism is useful, but can badly backfire long-term.

The president shelters  out of sight while a thousand protesters crowd around the White House. Here in Philadelphia, national guard  soldiers are guarding city hall. The mayor announced Frank Rizzo statue will be moved from such a public location (comment: that statue should have been moved decades ago)?

Added: Mayor Kenney: I never liked the statue of former  Mayor Rizzo. And don't believe he deserved that kind of recognition

Edited June 1, 20206 yr by Buddy2

12 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

It is called tactical alliances. Who said anything about believing their support is sincere? 

 

They sincerely do not want people to realize what lying sacks of shit they are.

I found the whole documentary. Powerful and still 100% relevant after 6 decades.

 

10 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

That seems very dangerous.

Pragmatism is useful, but can badly backfire long-term.

There is always danger. The challenge is to find a balance between values/principles and praxis. Denouncing the hypocrisy of the many "new allies" is right now counterproductive, in my opinion. 

Making false allies would be worse. Roger Goodell has only given us words, not actions. I am sorry to say that I don't agree with your strategic thinking here.

 

38 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

There is always danger. The challenge is to find a balance between values/principles and praxis. Denouncing the hypocrisy of the many "new allies" is right now counterproductive, in my opinion. 

And "new allies" often become valued supporters. example; Republican United States Senators during the civil rights legislation battles of the 1960s

Those Republican Senators did more than just make statements. They got involved.

I see no drama in disagreeing. We do not need to apologize, we do not need to agree on everything but only in the basic mutual respect and human empathy. 

3 hours ago, Lucky said:

Those Republican Senators did more than just make statements. They got involved.

They voted to approve Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. Southern Dems didn't.

9 hours ago, Buddy2 said:

They voted to approve Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. Southern Dems didn't.

That is a very good point. There are two (at least) sides to everything. N.C. Sen. Sam Ervin, constitutionalist hero of the Watergate hearings, was also a longtime racist in his Congressional career.

I do not think that tactical alliances necessarily compromise your principles. They are radically different to a strategic association between different political actors. Right now, there are two major goal for this protest: justice for the murderers (the 4 of them) of George Floyd, and criminal justice reform. Two goals that per se are just reformist aspirations, however in the context of systemic White Privilege, they become revolutionary. Of course I would ally with anyone who in this moment supports those goals. Whether or not they are hypocrites or unreliable allies, if they help us to obtain progressive victories that will turn into an objective improvement in the lives of millions of Americans, I will swallow my disgust and will bend my principles. My political goals (to defend inalienable Rights of innocent, powerless people) are more important that keeping my hand and conscience clean.

On 6/2/2020 at 7:47 AM, Latbear4blk said:

I do not think that tactical alliances necessarily compromise your principles. They are radically different to a strategic association between different political actors. Right now, there are two major goal for this protest: justice for the murderers (the 4 of them) of George Floyd, and criminal justice reform. Two goals that per se are just reformist aspirations, however in the context of systemic White Privilege, they become revolutionary. Of course I would ally with anyone who in this moment supports those goals. Whether or not they are hypocrites or unreliable allies, if they help us to obtain progressive victories that will turn into an objective improvement in the lives of millions of Americans, I will swallow my disgust and will bend my principles. My political goals (to defend inalienable Rights of innocent, powerless people) are more important that keeping my hand and conscience clean.

My long observation & experience have been that when the moment for action comes, such actors — after voluble comment toward the goal — almost invariably run away and avoid the commitment.

1 hour ago, AdamSmith said:

My long observation & experience have been that when the moment for action comes, such actors — after voluble comment toward the goal — almost invariably run away and avoid the commitment.

All the action needed now is to voice our support. They did it. No one is counting on them for anything else.

Peaceful demonstrations have because the rule now in nearly all cases. I saw a demonstration with police  very friendly with those participating this afternoon in Philadelphia.

On 6/2/2020 at 7:47 AM, Latbear4blk said:

I do not think that tactical alliances necessarily compromise your principles. They are radically different to a strategic association between different political actors. Right now, there are two major goal for this protest: justice for the murderers (the 4 of them) of George Floyd, and criminal justice reform. Two goals that per se are just reformist aspirations, however in the context of systemic White Privilege, they become revolutionary. Of course I would ally with anyone who in this moment supports those goals. Whether or not they are hypocrites or unreliable allies, if they help us to obtain progressive victories that will turn into an objective improvement in the lives of millions of Americans, I will swallow my disgust and will bend my principles. My political goals (to defend inalienable Rights of innocent, powerless people) are more important that keeping my hand and conscience clean.

I would say that short-term three immediate goals are:

1. Passage of Justin Amash's bill to revoke the immunity from lawsuit for police acting improperly;

2. Defunding of police departments to force them to get rid of purely military equipment they have been purchasing to confront crowds of citizens;

3. A strong requirement that body cams and auto cams be on when any citizen is engaged and that badge numbers not be covered.

Two blacks were murdered in Louisville by police in the last week. In the first the police broke Louisville law by not having their bodycams on during the killing of the woman and they promised they would abide by the law in the future. A few days  later they murdered another black without bodycams and the police chief was fired in 20 minutes.

Police traditionally "drape-in-mourning" every day their badges with black tape covering their badge numbers so complaints cannot be lodged.