Thoughts on the State of the Union

A few thoughts, in no particular order or leading to any particular cadence:

1. I agree with Mitch Daniels. The State of the Union has outlived its usefulness. Perhaps 100 years ago, it was nice to see (or hear) the President of the federal government informing Congress (via radio) of the actual state of our union. Mind you, this was pre-New Deal, so the Federal Govt. was comparatively limited. Also, this was pre-focus groups, etc. Now, the State of the Union is little more than a partisan spectacle. Provide a written report, based on facts, and leave the conjecture to the campaign trail.

2. Nancy Pelosi owns Donald Trump. This picture says it all:

You get Mike Pence, doing what Mike Pence does best (grovelling), and then you have "the Donald" looking at Madam Speaker for approval, which she seems to mockingly give him. Mr. Trump, you have met your match, "and when you're speaker of the House, they just let you do it."

3. Go big for the wall. It seems pretty clear that President Trump wants his wall built, regardless of what people tell him about its effectiveness or necessity. With that said, Mr. President, GO BIG. You want to be a transformative president? Make a big deal! Deals don't get made by demanding the same terms over and over. Mr. President, if you want your wall, make the Democrats an offer they can't refuse. Your threats to shut down the government don't scare anyone because everyone knows that it is you, not congressional Democrats, who is demanding something in exchange for keeping the government open. Offer something so important to the democrats that they will have no choice but to go along with your quixotic wall.

4. The only part I liked was the women cheering. I noticed President Trump cited women's employment numbers; based on the context, I thought he was trying to troll Democrats. Of course, they stood up and cheered, insinuating (if I picked it up accurately) that Donald Trump is personally responsible for so many of them being elected. Surprisingly, President Trump appeared to have a good sense of humor about it.

5. I didn't hear any policy proposals that I expect to become law. President Trump complained some about prescription drug prices and said that it is going to change, "and real fast." Of course, complaining about a problem is not a policy proposal. It is one thing to ID the problem; it is quite another to have any idea of what to do about it. As I've heard more than once: "The only legal question worth answering is 'what do we do now?'"

Shameful

When I last lived in Ft. Wayne (2013-2014), I heard constantly about how the "good conservative folks of Northeastern Indiana" would do this and that, would always act politely, gathered the facts before acting hysterically, etc. This was always pointed out in juxtaposition to Obama (a nation turns its lonely eyes to you Barack Obama). Among the things that the "good conservative folks of Northeastern Indiana" have been doing lately, apparently, is this:

Fort Wayne's Planned Parenthood Health Center is closing effective today after several years of increased harassment and intimidation.

“I'm pretty angry about this,” said Christie Gillespie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. “This is not how decent and compassionate people behave. These are actions of harassment and intimidation that are done in the name of faith, religion and Jesus.

“It's an awful day for the Fort Wayne community. We will be back stronger.”

The Fort Wayne location at 3914 W. Jefferson Blvd. does not perform abortions and has four employees.

Gillespie said the community is losing a trusted health care provider that conducted tests for early diagnosis of cervical, testicular and breast cancer, provided birth control options and tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

Gillespie said the tactics used by Allen County Right to Life and other area groups go far beyond protesting outside the facility.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky provided copies of a mailer sent to Fort Wayne neighborhoods where a Planned Parenthood nurse practitioner worked.

It included her name and picture and said “There are killers among us.” It said the woman enabled “child killing by coordinating abortions off site.” It also gave her home address.

Absolutely disgusting and shameful. If, as they say, you are judged by the company you keep, then this list of people should be judged for keeping company with Allen County Right to Life and its shameful tactics.

NOTE: I haven't even addressed the fact that Fort Wayne Planned Parenthood (a) does not provide abortions but (b) provides no/low-cost STD screening. Perhaps someone can explain to me how these so-called "right to life" groups are targeting abortion and not conducting the so-called "war on women" with these kinds of tactics directed at clinics that don't provide abortions?

"Majority Rule"

Interesting Data Point #1: By this fall, four of the nine Supreme Court justices will have been appointed by presidents who entered office after having lost the popular vote.

Interesting Data Point #2: To take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats will have to win the national popular vote by 11% (55.5% to 44.5%).

Democracy: a government by the people; rule of the majority

These data points don't fit too well with the definition of democracy; it all leads to a very depressing conclusion.

Snowflakes and Safe Spaces

How many times have I read the same old op-ed about these ultra-liberal campuses that are "suppressing free speech" by not allowing alt-right nationalists (i.e. Nazis) speak on their campuses? I mean, if you've read anything by Bari Weiss, Brett Stephens, Megan McCardle, et al in the last four years, I'm sure you're familiar with the general outlines of the argument:

"Look at these little snowflake college kids that are so insecure in their own opinions and beliefs that they can't stand to hear opposing viewpoints. This threatens all of our liberty!"

The argument is true to a certain degree, but I note that it is never used to engage the broader suppressions of free speech that are going on right in front of us.

Well, TableTopJoe is here to help try to even things out! I give you that manliest of manly things, that would never ever be some little snowflake who needs a safe space, the National Football League.

NFL owners have unanimously approved a new national anthem policy that requires players to stand if they are on the field during the performance but gives them the option to remain in the locker room if they prefer, it was announced Wednesday.

So, to be clear, when a private liberal arts college refuses to host a white nationalist as a speaker, this is an intolerable erosion of our freedoms because all political statements apparently have value. However, when wealthy white football team owners decide that they are going to force their (largely black) football players to either make the "preferred" political statement or no statement at all, well that is just patriotism, y'see!

A few more points:

• The NFL is a private organization and is not bound by the First Amendment.
• That the NFL is not bound by the First Amendment does not mean that it is not bound by both common decency and the preferences of its customers (i.e. fans).
• Standing for the National Anthem is every bit as much of a political statement as kneeling for the National Anthem.
• By telling players they are allowed to make one political statement (STAND) and not another (kneel), the NFL has inserted itself into a political controversy.
• The NFL has indicated that protesting the unwarranted killing of unarmed black men in their players' communities is a sanctionable offense, whereas standing for the Anthem and making THAT political statement is A-OK.

The NFL and its fans: a bunch of delicate little snowflakes that need their safe spaces. Who knew?

On Respect

I was watching the Olympic Games tonight, and was quite proud to see Shaun White win the gold medal. I was not aware of his recent injuries, etc. However, I couldn't help but notice thereafter, that Mr. White carried the American flag over his back for a moment, and then drug it along the ground, occasionally stepping on it.

I am not one who is given to empty sentimentality, and this is an action from which I would personally refrain. I do wonder, however, whether the Tweeter in Chief will have something to say about this. This was, by any metric, a casual disregard for the traditional understanding of "respect" for an American symbol. I don't believe that Mr. White meant to make any sort of a protest against America and I certainly don't dispute his right to do so if that was his intent. I just wonder whether this will engender the type of controversy that Colin Kapernick did.

It's not like Shaun White knelt during the National Anthem to protest the killing of people who looked like him by people who didn't in the name of the government that purported to represent him.

My Letter to the Journal Gazette, published 11-2-17

As I've noted before, I tend to write letters to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette more often than I write letters to the Indy Star. Perhaps it's because I grew up in Ft. Wayne. I don't know. Anyway, here is the text:

I have read in The Journal Gazette and elsewhere recently that NFL players have a First Amendment right to kneel for the national anthem. I suppose they do, but it is entirely beside the point. The government is not threatening repercussions for their kneeling.

We all have First Amendment rights to free speech. This guarantees us the right to express ourselves without having to fear government retribution. The First Amendment does not deal with private actors, including employers. Unfortunately, if your boss wants to fire you for being a Democrat, the First Amendment won't protect you. If Jerry Jones wants to fire his quarterback for kneeling during the national anthem, the First Amendment won't stop him.

The NFL players' protests are, in my opinion, respectful and tasteful. I see nothing in their actions that demeans the troops, first responders, firefighters, apple pie or anything else people consider to be “all American.” They seem simply to be expressing the radical notion that duly empowered law enforcement officers should not be so cavalier when shooting members of their community. I hope they continue to kneel as long as they feel the need to do so.

Nonetheless, let's be clear about what the First Amendment does and does not protect: It protects your speech from restrictions by the government; it does not protect your speech from restrictions by overbearing bosses.

TABLETOP JOE

Speedway

Former Fort Wayne resident

"Disrespecting" the Flag

Here is a story about a contracted ref for a North Central H.S. volleyball game walking out on his contract after becoming so upset by a teenager taking a knee for the anthem. I suppose this is what happens when we go all in on "divisiveness" and decide to armor up, choose sides, and fight amongst ourselves. In the world of litigation, we call this "staking out a bargaining position." Of course, in the world of litigation, all controversies must end, eventually. However, as to this story, I found a few points to be illuminating:

Jim Saddler is sorry. That’s the first thing he wants you to know. Not sorry for being angry — he’s still pretty angry — but for the way he handled his anger when he saw a volleyball player kneeling during the national anthem. 

Kudos to Mr. Saddler, as an initial matter. He understands, perhaps in a way that Pres. Agent Orange, VP Empty Suit, Speaker of the House Eddie Haskell, Senate Majority Leader Doublechin, (see what I did there, giving Trumpian names?) and so many others don't, that we are supposed to be the adults. Our children are watching the way we interact with each other and will imitate it. Let's try to give them a good template. Well done in your penitence, Mr. Saddler. Hats off, if only for that.

As to the merits of your position, well . . .

That’s why when he saw a North Central girls varsity volleyball player kneeling before an Oct. 9 match he was supposed to line judge, he couldn’t stay and do his duty.
He was barely able to contain his anger when he saw fans “sitting on their butts” during the national anthem, but once he saw the player on a knee, he had to leave.
Saddler calmly walked to the scorer’s bench, turned in his flag, then approached the North Central coach to inform him why he couldn’t stay.

Well, Mr. Saddler, I suppose that is your right. However, this article addressed a few important points:

1. Neither the kneeling teenager nor Mr. Saddler's actions have anything to do with the First Amendment, as has been pointed out on this blog ad nauseum. The First Amendment has to do with government actions, not private ones. That a private individual chose to kneel,  and another private individual chose to walk out of the occasion, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment.

2. Mr. Saddler had a contractual obligation to referee the game. Punctas sans servandas, "promises are to be kept." Whether Saddler was paid $1 or $1m to ref the game is immaterial; he had a contractual obligation and he breached the contract. Between Saddler and the girl who knelt for the Anthem, Saddler is the one who is in the wrong. He breached a contract.

3. Saddler identifies himself as a vet, and the article goes on to describe his service as a flight attendant aboard Air Force One. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, but I do not believe that all vets are created equally. 

If you're a combat veteran, I believe that you deserve every bit of the respect that you are given, ten times over. One of the reasons I did not join the military after 9/11 is that I am deathly afraid of dying, particularly in a violent manner. To the combat veterans of the world, you have my undying (no pun intended) respect. 

To non-combat veterans, I appreciate your service too, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that your service stateside or in Germany or Japan is the same as the Marine who took Fallujah. There are a lot of people who work for the government, with crappy pay and worse working conditions; teachers come to mind, as do social workers. 

Bottom line: When it comes to the kneeling-for-the-anthem "controversy," perhaps we should all just chill out a bit.