# data[].attributes.headline
Do you think Collin Kaepernick is right or wrong?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you think Collin Kaepernick is right or wrong?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No, this isn't about concussions, domestic violence or even the ridiculously infamous "Deflategate." This is about the national anthem -- whether to stand, kneel or raise a fist while giant American flags are being unfurled from end zone to end zone.

The anthem crisis maybe isn't an existential one -- yet -- to the NFL, but it has the potential to mushroom into something much bigger than being merely about Colin Kaepernick and a few other protesters. This crisis threatens to pit the league against its very own paying customers.

You see, strangely, a league that has no compunction about fining players for wearing the wrong socks, shoes or twerking after a touchdown is suddenly silent about whether its employees must stand during the playing of the national anthem. "The Shield" that would not allow players to commemorate slain police officers in Dallas has no firm policy on whether it's OK or not if someone in an NFL uniform decides to chill during the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner.

The NBA, generally considered the most player-friendly and progressive of the North American pro sports leagues, actually has a rule about the anthem, ( and it's pretty unequivocal): "Players, coaches and trainers are to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or on the foul line during the playing of the National Anthem." And that goes for both the U.S. and Canadian anthems, since it has a team based in Toronto.

But when Kaepernick, the San Francisco 49ers' backup quarterback, decided that he would no longer honor the flag, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell limply made a statement saying the league merely "encourages" players to be "respectful" during the anthem, but there was no mention of requiring players to stand. If Kaepernick's protest left the door ajar, Goodell's response served to blow it from the hinges as a stampede of players decided to use the occasion to demonstrate whatever grievances they have against their own country.

Kaepernick's stated reason for his protest is that minorities in the U.S. are being oppressed. But more specifically, he claimed that he could not stand for the flag while the police are murdering civilians and getting away with it. He also displayed his disdain for law enforcement by wearing socks featuring pigs in police hats during practice (and so far appears to have received no discipline from the league for impermissible gear).

Whether anyone agrees with Kaepernick's sentiments, however, should be irrelevant to the NFL. This isn't a free speech issue as many sympathetic to Kaepernick's cause have claimed it to be. If Kaepernick made disparaging remarks toward gays, minorities or any ethnic group, he would've been fined and/or suspended. In fact, he was docked over $5,000 by the league in 2014 for allegedly uttering the N-word during a game toward Lamarr Houston of the Chicago Bears (although he was later judged not to have used the slur).

This isn't about the First Amendment. While Congress shall make no law infringing on your freedom of expression, your employer damn well can impose what kind of conduct it expects when you're on company time while wearing company gear. The NFL -- just like the NBA -- has every right to demand that its players stand erect and make no fuss while the national anthem is playing.

By being derelict on this matter, though, Goodell risks his league alienating a healthy chunk of its paying customers -- the fans and sponsors. The commissioner, already with an antagonistic relationship with the players and their union over what many see as his disciplinarian overreach, probably decided that he didn't want to pick another fight. Maybe he wished that this whole anthem business would go away quickly, especially had the shaky Kaepernick been cut by the 49ers.

But by suggesting that there are no rules, Goodell guaranteed that this issue would engulf his league -- for the entire season and possibly beyond. And make no mistake, there's already a strong racial undercurrent in this chasm -- so far, the protesting football players are black, and the most visceral reaction toward the protesters has come from the league's majority white fan base. The NFL has unwittingly allowed itself to become the biggest platform in America's summer of discontent, pitting certain minority groups against the police and their supporters.

What Goodell has done is not even condoned by some of the owners, who are ostensibly his bosses. And it is simply bad business. The NFL, already beset by problems with player safety and discipline, risks further erosion of its fan base, as reflected both in attendance and especially television ratings.

What the all-powerful commissioner should have told his players is this: Protest all you want, but do it on your own time and dime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the nfl's protest crisis (opinion) - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No, this isn't about concussions, domestic violence or even the ridiculously infamous "Deflategate." This is about the national anthem -- whether to stand, kneel or raise a fist while giant American flags are being unfurled from end zone to end zone.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ethics is knowing morally whats right or wrong in any situation

# data[].attributes.subject
Ethics is knowing morally whats right or wrong in any situation

# data[].attributes.body
What is your personal definition of ethics?

# data[].attributes.headline
Walmart is known for having sweatshop like conditions.

# data[].attributes.subject
Walmart is known for having sweatshop like conditions.

# data[].attributes.headline
My code of ethics for a business should include:

# data[].attributes.subject
My code of ethics for a business should include:

# data[].attributes.body
-Being equal to all possible customers and employees

-Having respect for everyone's demographic backgrounds.

-Being diverse and open minded of the world around us.

-Treating everyone the same and be fair

-Telling the truth to the public and employees.

-Build a strong family-like bond with customers and employees.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you think Trump is doing a good job at being president?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you think Trump is doing a good job at being president?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump has led the "most unethical presidency" in US history, according to a scathing report by a government ethics watchdog.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW) accused the US President of conflating matters of public interest with decisions that "benefit his bottom line".

Authors said a "failure to address this crisis" could cause "lasting harm to the country", one year on from Mr Trump's inauguration.

"It has long since become clear that our initial concerns - and those of so many Americans - were well founded. Indeed, in retrospect they were understated," the document states.

"The Trump administration is confronted by an extraordinary scale and scope of legal and ethics scandals. It is unrivalled in the modern era, and perhaps in the history of the nation, for a first-year administration.

"The conduct of this administration, from the president on down, threatens our centuries-old tradition of a government that functions to serve the interests of the American people, rather than to serve the interests of those in power."

The 36-page report also stated a president "sets the tone" for an administration, and the numerous scandals that have followed Mr Trump since his election campaign have "spread like a cancer" throughout his executive branch.

"The result is a vast array of ethics problems and improper influence among White House staff, cabinet officials, and senior agency officials," the report said.

CREW has lodged 180 legal challenges against the former real estate mogul and his administration, often citing the "emoluments clause" in the US Constitution that forbids a president from receiving gifts or payments from foreign governments.

"For virtually every decision President Trump makes, from taxes to environmental regulations to foreign policy, the American people cannot be sure whether he made his decision in the public interest or to benefit his bottom line," the report noted.

The watchdog is now calling on Congress to safeguard special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"After a full year of this administration, it is now abundantly clear that the executive branch under President Trump is characterised by contempt for ethics and conflicts of interest rules and for the rule of law," the report said. "It is time for the American people to conclude that one year is enough and to demand an end to the culture of corruption that is gripping Washington."

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump presidency is the 'most unethical in modern history', report finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump has led the "most unethical presidency" in US history, according to a scathing report by a government ethics watchdog. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) accused the US President of conflating matters of public interest with decisions that "benefit his bottom line".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was the second successive Serie A match in which Matuidi, who has played over 60 times for the French national team, had been subjected to abuse.

Verona were handed a suspended partial stadium ban and hit with a ($24,000) €20,000 fine for racist chanting directed at Matuidi during their league match against Juventus on December 30.

"Today I experienced racism during the match. Weak people try to intimidate with hate," Matuidi, who moved to Juventus from Paris Saint-Germain in the summer, wrote on his Facebook page, referring to the latest incident.

"I am not a hater and can only be sorry for those who set bad examples. Football is a way to spread equality, passion and inspiration and this is what I am here for. Peace."

Cagliari was quick to show its support for Matuidi, issuing its own response to the 30-year-old's Twitter post.

"You're a great player, an example to young players," said the club. "We want to apologize to you if you were insulted at the Sardegna Arena because of the color of your skin.

"Racism has nothing to do with the Sardinian people. Only ignorance can explain certain behavior. Respect."

The incident, which took place just before half-time, left Matuidi visibly upset as he appeared to look towards the stands.

Past incidents

Ghanaian midfielder Kevin-Prince Boateng, who in 2013 caused a friendly match between his then team AC Milan and Pro Patria to be suspended after he walked off following racial abuse, took time to show his support for Matuidi.

"Enough is enough!!! I am with you Blaise Matuidi," he wrote. "We need to stand strong and fight racism NOW!!! #weareallthesame."

Last year, Nice striker Mario Balotelli was racially abused by Bastia fans during his team's Ligue 1 match.

Bastia was handed a three-match stadium ban and a suspended one-point deduction, while the club also banned one fan for making monkey chants.

"Blaise I've been through this, don't let the ignorance of a few affect you," Balotelli wrote. "Not all Italians are like that. Keep doing great bro!"

Talking to CNN in 2017, then Pescara midfielder Sulley Muntari explained how he experienced racism "every game" follow abuse he received -- again in a match against Cagliari.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
blaise matuidi: outpouring of support for juventus star after alleged racist abuse during league match - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blaise Matuidi receives flood of support after alleged racist abuse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was the second successive Serie A match in which Matuidi, who has played over 60 times for the French national team, had been subjected to abuse. Verona were handed a suspended partial stadium ban and hit with a ($24,000) €20,000 fine for racist chanting directed at Matuidi during their league match against Juventus on December 30.

# data[].attributes.headline
When have you guys heard of unethical practices in America?

# data[].attributes.subject
When have you guys heard of unethical practices in America?

# data[].attributes.headline
When have you guys heard of ethical practices in America?

# data[].attributes.subject
When have you guys heard of ethical practices in America?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court's orders effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban.

The orders gave no reasons for the court's shift. The move did suggest that the administration's chances of prevailing at the Supreme Court when the justices consider the lawfulness of the latest ban have markedly increased.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the order "a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people." A spokesman for the White House, Hogan Gidley, said, "We are not surprised by today's Supreme Court decision," calling it "lawful and essential to protecting our homeland."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents people and groups challenging the ban, said it would continue to argue against the ban as challenges against it in lower appeals courts proceed.

"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret - he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter," said Omar Jadwat, director of the A.C.L.U.'s Immigrants' Rights Project. "It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims."

In a pair of filings in the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco said Mr. Trump had acted under his broad constitutional and statutory authority to control immigration when he issued a new proclamation in September announcing the new travel restrictions.

Mr. Francisco wrote that the process leading to the proclamation was more deliberate than those that had led to earlier bans, issued in January and March. Those orders were temporary measures, he wrote, while the proclamation was the product of extensive study and deliberation.

Lawyers with the A.C.L.U. told the justices that little had changed. "The proclamation is the third order the president has signed this year banning more than 100 million individuals from Muslim-majority nations from coming to the United States," they wrote.

In October, federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked major parts of the latest ban while legal challenges proceed.

"A nationality-based travel ban against eight nations consisting of over 150 million people is unprecedented," wrote Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the Federal District Court in Maryland. Citing statements from Mr. Trump, some made as a presidential candidate and some more recent, Judge Chuang found that the new proclamation was tainted by religious animus and most likely violated the Constitution's prohibition of government establishment of religion.

Similarly, Judge Derrick K. Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu found that the September proclamation "suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor," adding that it "plainly discriminates based on nationality" in violation of federal law "and the founding principles of this nation."

The administration has appealed both decisions to federal appeals courts in Seattle and Richmond, Va. Arguments in those appeals are scheduled for this week.

Judge Chuang limited his injunction to exclude people without "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," quoting from a Supreme Court order issued in June concerning the second travel ban. Judge Watson did not impose such a limitation, but an appeals court modified his injunction, also quoting the Supreme Court's language.

Lawyers for Hawaii, which is challenging the ban, told the justices that there was no reason to make changes now.

"Less than six months ago, this court considered and rejected a stay request indistinguishable from the one the government now presses," they wrote. "But the justification for that dramatic relief has only weakened. In place of a temporary ban on entry, the president has imposed an indefinite one, deepening and prolonging the harms a stay would inflict."

Mr. Francisco asked the justices to allow every part of the third ban to go into effect. The second version of the travel ban, he wrote, "involved temporary procedures before the review was conducted and in the absence of a presidential determination concerning the adequacy of foreign governments' information-sharing and identity-management practices."

"Now that the review has been completed and identified ongoing deficiencies in the information needed to assess nationals of particular countries," he wrote, "additional restrictions are needed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court's orders effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban. The orders gave no reasons for the court's shift.