Phasers on Stun Part II – 2A Deconstructed

 by Steven B. Orkin

 

 

The 2^nd Amendment was enacted on December 15, 1791 along with the other initial ten amendments adopted as part of the Bill of Rights. Considering the volume of attention and controversy surrounding it, you’d think it was this titanic, ‘War & Peace’-length document brimming with provocative language and groundbreaking ideas.

It isn’t. Here’s what it says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Before we get going, I want to take a moment to present a different version. Here’s the 2^nd Amendment as written by Donald Trump.

“A well regulated Militia” – I love militias. Big fan of militias. We’ve got a lot of militias here. Best in the world. Militias have never been better since I took office. We’re gonna make them even bigger. – “being necessary to the security” – I’m all about security; most important thing, security. America is totally secure, by the way. Most secure country in the world, especially since I took office. I’ve made America more secure than any other president. Once we build the wall we’ll be even more secure; gotta have that wall to make America great. Not that it’s not great, especially since I took office. Best it’s ever been. – “of a free State” – Freedom, very important. Most important thing, freedom. I’m all about freedom. We’re gonna make America free again; freer than it’s ever been. Also like states. We’ve got a lot of states here in this country. At least 50 of them. That’s right, right? 50 states? I own a lot of property in states. I’m gonna make a lot more of them so I can put more property in them. We’re gonna have the best states we’ve ever had; better than anywhere else in the world. – “the right of the people” – That’s RIGHT of the people, not the left. Crooked Hilary’s left and look where that got us. If I hadn’t beaten her more than any other president has beaten any other opponent in history, we’d be in a lot of trouble, gotta tell you. – “to keep and bear Arms” – everyone should have arms. Very important, arms. I have two of them; use them every day. Better than anyone else. No one’s got arms like me. – “shall not be infringed.” – Not sure what infringed means so it’s gotta be bad. Not liking infringed; nothing I do as President is gonna be infringed. I’m the anti-infringe President. This is a great amendment! Best amendment there’s ever been! No one’s ever had a better amendment. We’re gonna be looking at the other amendments to make sure this one’s the best. I’m gonna make it the 1^st Amendment became my amendment is better than the rest of the amendments. Not a big fan of the 1^st Amendment we have now. The Dems made that amendment. Totally fake news! Gotta get rid of that one. 2^nd Amendment 1^st! 2^nd Amendment 1^st!”

We’ll work with the original version for this post.

Let me state outright that my goal here is to decode 2A’s language in layperson terms and thereby provide a clearer picture of what the amendment actually says. Part of the challenge in doing that is that the English language is not a static thing. It’s continuously evolving, so some of the words aren’t used in the same way as they were when the amendment was written. Therefore, we must employ a certain degree of interpretation and sociological context to this process. From a mechanics perspective, we must break down those 27 words into individual terms and phrases, then put them back together to gain a more robust understanding of 2A’s language. We’ll be calling on our dear friend, Merriam-Webster (M-W) for assistance. Here’s a link to their website: https://www.merriam-webster.com.

We’re going to be doing some high-end wordsmithing here so buckle up. Here we go…

The first thing we need to establish is that from a grammatical standpoint, 2A is horrendously written. The fact that it’s so poorly constructed is one of the main reasons there’s so much controversy surrounding it. The language is unclear. Therefore, the meaning is muddled. Any English teacher on the planet would justifiably eviscerate a student who composed something like this. Try reading it out loud (the best editing tool on the planet, by the way). It’s not even an actual sentence! It’s four chunks of semi-related phrases dumped onto the page.

At first glance, there appears to be two subjects in the sentence:

1)      Well regulated Militia (The missing hyphen between ‘well’ and ‘regulated’ is killing me, by the way. My fellow grammar geeks totally get me on this. The rest of you simply cannot know my pain.).  

2)     Right of the people.

Let’s do a bit of touch-up.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Addition of the word “and” brings more cohesion to the sentence but it’s still clunky. Further, we have an interpretation problem in that there may NOT in fact be two subjects. “Right of the people” may be endemically connected to “well regulated Militia,” given the definition of “Militia” at the time 2A was written (more on this below), making “and” even more problematic.

Let’s try it another way:

“NEITHER a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, NOR the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed.” (removed “not” from between “shall” and “be.”)

Go ahead. Read it out loud. Three simple changes bring elegance, flow, and most importantly, clarity to the sentence.

But of course, there’s a “Buuuut…”

We still don’t know if that’s what was intended in the composition of the language. Is “right of the people” a separate entity or is it part of the definition of “well regulated Militia”? The amendment is maddeningly obtuse!

On that cheery note, now that we’ve gotten forest component out of the way, let’s take a look at the trees.

We begin with the opening phrase, “well regulated militia.” This phrase is highly problematic for a number of reasons, but one of its primary challenges is that it meant something different at the time it was written than it does today. As written THEN, “well regulated Militia” refers to a militia that is consistent and well-organized. As interpreted NOW, the phrase refers to a militia that is subject to tight legislation.

M-W reports the definition of ‘regulated’ as follows:

Definition 1

a: to govern or direct according to rule

b1: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

b2: to make regulations for or concerning, e.g. regulate the industries of a country

Definition 2

To bring order, method, or uniformity to, e.g. regulate one's habits

Definition 3

To fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of, e.g. regulate the pressure of a tire

We’re going to immediately dispense with Definition 1b2. It’s obtuse to include a variation of the actual word you’re defining in the definition of that word.

Next, we’ll do away with Definition 3 since it doesn’t apply in this context. We’ve already narrowed the field significantly. Our options now read as follows:

Definition 1

a: to govern or direct according to rule

b1: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

Definition 2

To bring order, method, or uniformity to, e.g. regulate one's habits

I’m floating toward Definition 2 as being closest to the pure meaning of the word.

As some of you may know, I work with medical students in my day job. Part of my responsibilities involve processing evaluations from hospitals where the students complete clinical training periods called rotations in various medical specialties. Some of them do rotations in the UK. The British use English differently than we do. In certain respects, they use the language in its more ‘traditional’ form.

Why am I telling you this? Because a word that often appears on the UK student evaluations I receive is ‘regular,’ a variant of ‘regulate’ in the Definition 2 sense. For example, they’ll indicate something like, “Dr. Jones was regular in attendance.” Therefore, when we regulate something in the UK, it often means we’re bringing consistency and/or organization to it.

In contemporary America, ‘regular’ is most frequently used as a synonym for ‘normal,’ or ‘common’ e.g. just a regular guy. Further, ‘regulate’ is something very different here. We use that word in a manner consistent with Definition 1 above, i.e. ‘regulate’ as a form of ‘regulation.’

So, let’s take a look at ‘regulation.’

On a side note, M-W does something very interesting with their definitions. They include a general definition at the top followed by various categories. One such category is directed to kids. That’s the best one in the case of ‘regulation.’ It reads as follows:

Definition 1

A rule or law telling how something is to be done, e.g. safety regulations.

Definition 2:

The act of controlling or bringing under control, e.g. the regulation of water flow.

Both definitions are clear and concise, but they also illustrate the differences in the way we generally use the word vs the way the UK generally uses it. Definition 2 is more in line with the UK. It’s more traditional in nature and therefore closer to the way it was used in the context of 2A.

Now we have to look at ‘militia.’ In doing a bit of research, I found that this term is VERY broadly defined, and as with ‘regulate,’ its definition changes depending on the time period / context we’re talking about. At the time 2A was written, a militia could be defined as a group of armed citizens (some legal/legislative descriptions specify “men” because as we know, all women are delicate flowers who can’t handle weapons and ostensibly belong in the kitchen) not officially associated with the government but acts under its direction in response to specific threats / crises.

Use of militias was far more significant in the context of our national defense at the time 2A was written than it is now. The fact that the term is capitalized adds credence to this notion. Back then, militias were routinely mobilized to provide support to government forces because the US military simply wasn’t expansive and sophisticated enough to do the job of protecting our nation on its own.

Today, the US military is immensely powerful and resourceful, capable of handling most any problem they encounter. That doesn’t mean we don’t need militias. It means we need them in a different way, which brings us to a more contemporary context for the term. The National Guard was founded as a militia. Though it was later incorporated into the US military, it still functions in much the same way it did at its inception. The NG helps our country in times of need. Though they continue to provide critical support for military operations all over the world, their role has expanded to include civil unrest, natural disasters, domestic terrorism, and other such challenges. Even if they weren’t helping on the front lines, they would still be critical to the welfare of our country. However, the NG cannot technically be considered a ‘militia’ since they are now a component of the US Army. Militias, if defined as a non-governmental force, are obsolete and do not need to be accounted for in the context of the US Constitution. The term should be removed from the amendment.

Moving on.

“Being necessary to the security of a free State” obviously qualifies the previous phrase but given our discussion above, a “well regulated Militia” is in fact, NOT “necessary.” The capitalization of “State” implies that a militia serves some sort of official governmental purpose. Again, outside of organizations like the National Guard, this is simply not the case.

Now we come to the heart of the amendment, the part that is responsible for so much chaos, misunderstanding, and irrationality.

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The “bear arms” phrase is frequently misunderstood because the spelling of the word “bare” as in, ‘to uncover,’ did not come into use until 1803, over ten years after 2A was written. Before then, the “bear” spelling was used for both the uncover context and in the context of “to carry.” What this means is that with regard to 2A, “bear arms” was a legislative rider referring to the right of the people to actually bare their arms, precipitated by the invention of the short-sleeved shirt.

But seriously…

The language here is pretty straight-forward. You can remove the comma after “Arms” and read it as a single sentence. It works perfectly.

On a side-note, I have no idea why ‘Arms’ is capitalized. There is no discernible reason why this term should receive proper noun status in this (or any) context.

To sum up this installment of my NRA / 2A miniseries, the reality is that 2A needs to be rewritten both for clarity, and to reflect modern interpretation of the language. It simply doesn’t do the job.

This is the power of bad writing in action. It has the potential to bring civilization to a grinding halt. I know that sounds melodramatic but it really isn’t. Someone needs to blue-pencil the Constitution.

In the next post of this series, we’ll explore 2A from a more interpretive perspective, with special focus on the NRA’s extremist, propagandistic abuse of the wording and meaning.

Thank you for reading.

~~~

Phasers on Stun Part I: The NRA

 by Steven B. Orkin

 

 

 

Here’s what this post is NOT about:

• Taking away all the guns.
• “Violating” 2nd Amendment rights.
• Denigrating responsible gun owners, some of whom may be members of the NRA.

_____________________________________________________________________

Dispatch from the ‘Know Your Enemy’ Dept:

What is the NRA?

A fair enough question, right? We’ve been hearing an awful lot about them over the last few years. For better or worse, most everyone has an opinion on the matter, and I’m no different. Though admittedly, it made me queasy, I went to their website to learn more.

At its inception in 1871 and for some time thereafter, the National Rifle Association was actually a fairly positive organization. The initial impetus was to address poor marksmanship among soldiers but they later expanded that mission to encompass firearms training for hunters and to promote what they term “shooting sports among America's youth.”

You can read all about it at the website but for my purposes, here, I’m going to mention one date of note. As the website indicates: “In 1975, recognizing the critical need for political defense of the Second Amendment, NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA.”

This is the poisonous seed that ultimately grew so wildly out of control, it superseded any positive purpose the NRA may have served and made it what it is today: a soulless propaganda and lobbyist machine that actively works to prevent any new gun legislation that doesn’t suit their gun manufacturer-driven agenda of putting more guns in people’s hands. They do not care how rational or necessary any new legislation may be and they do not care about the welfare of the citizens of this country. They are nothing less than an extremist organization. They do not negotiate. When faced with any criticism or opposition, they clamp their hands over their ears and chant “2nd Amendment! More guns! 2nd Amendment! More guns!” They are an active detriment to the welfare of our country and its citizens. They care about nothing but themselves and their agenda.

Their claptrap (that’s right; I used the c-word) references to the 2nd Amendment, “liberty,” “America,” “civil rights,” (incredibly, they are technically considered a “civil rights advocacy” organization) and all other such pseudo-patriotic propaganda are nothing but amoral, loathsome cloaking devices to serve their agenda. I’m going to vivisect some of that propaganda in a future installment of this post. This installment is intended to focus primarily on the organization itself and what to do about them.

I believe that the majority of legal gun owners are responsible, rational people. The NRA does NOT represent those people! My advice to any such individuals who are NRA members is to revoke their memberships immediately. More on this below.

If we were to anonymously poll every member of Congress about whether they support sensible gun control legislation, the results would be resoundingly pro-legislation (From a more cynical perspective, if one of these shootings occurred at a session of Congress, assault weapons would be banned within a week). This is not a fight about right and wrong or even rationality vs irrationality. It’s about removing a catastrophically dangerous parasite from the body of this country, a parasite that has compromised the functionality of America.

The NRA donates a lot of money to political figures who either support their agenda or can be intimidated into doing so. Indeed, it gives them ratings to assess their value to their cause. It buys and sells politicians on a constant basis, sinking their claws deeper and deeper into our political system. It has to stop. The NRA must, ironically, be disarmed for the public good.

Here’s how we do that:

1. Refuse to vote for politicians who take NRA money. Write your grandma’s name on the ballot sheet if all the candidates in a given race take NRA money. It doesn’t matter what they have done, are doing, or claim they will do. It doesn’t matter if they took $100.00 or $100,000.00. If they deal with the NRA, they’re not electable. It’s not a conversation. It’s a light switch. No NRA influence: Light On. Takes NRA money: Light Off. It’s really that simple. And necessary.

Check out the following website for all kinds of interesting details regarding NRA finances:
 

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00053553/

2. Support companies that have boycotted the NRA and don’t do business with those that do. A few major companies have stepped up to distance themselves from the NRA. More of them (a LOT more) need to do the same.

Here’s a current list of companies (as of April 2018) that have boycotted the NRA based on a recent Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/nra-boycott-full-list-companies-have-cut-ties-gun-lobby-over-florida-shooting-819050):

Alamo Rent a Car
Allied Van Lines
Avis
Best Western
Budget Rental Car
Chubb Insurance
Delta Air Lines
Enterprise Rent-a-Car
1st Nat’l Bank of Omaha
Hertz
MetLife
N American Van Lines
Paramount Rx
SimpliSafe
Symantec
TrueCar

There will be more, and more power to them. I realize I’m outing myself as an idealist of the highest order, but corporate America shouldn’t just be about making money. Sometimes, they need to take a stand on what’s right for our country. This is one of those times.

3. Encourage NRA members to join other gun-owner’s organizations. Basic membership in the NRA is $40 per year. You get a magazine subscription, an initial gift of a duffel bag or baseball cap, and some discounts. It’s not worth it ideologically or literally. As noted above, there are plenty of other responsible organizations for gun-owners out there. Empower NRA members to find one and join it. Encourage them to say a permanent goodbye to the NRA and not look back.

To those NRA members who feel disenfranchised by the organization, or legal gun owners who aren’t NRA members (and I’ve talked to people in both factions who specifically told me, “I’m a gun owner but I don’t feel the NRA speaks for me or represents my interests.”), let me say this: There are lots of other gun-owners organizations out there that support sensible gun legislation and provide similar benefits. It’s easy to find them by doing a websearch on something like “sensible gun control groups.” They will use your membership dollars far more progressively than the NRA and they probably need them a lot more. If they don’t provide the same level of discounts on various goods and services that the NRA does, join AAA.

4. Push for more legislation regarding ammunition. I know this seems a little off the wall but hear me out. The reason we’ve made so much headway with regard to gay rights in recent years, particularly with regard to gay marriage, is simple. Gay rights advocates successfully minimized the influence of religion in that discussion. When you look at it in a purely legal context, the right to marry, a right you need a license for (we should require one for being a parent, too, but I digress…) is a contract that grants the participants certain rights and privileges. Religious beliefs play no concrete role in that process. Any conversation about gay marriage not being ‘acceptable’ or ‘appropriate’ comes down to one deeply flawed, religious dogma-based conclusion: My love as a straight person is ‘better’ than your love as a gay person. Ultimately, the courts had no choice but to recognize that that notion is ridiculous. That opened the doors to allow the gay community to start getting the rights they deserve. It circumvented flawed, but deeply-ingrained ideology. The same thing will ultimately occur with related transgender rights. Unless there is a legitimate, concrete, legal rationale to prevent them from serving in the military and being provided access to other resources that all other Americans have access to, they will eventually be granted those same freedoms and opportunities. We have to employ the same creativity of thought regarding the NRA to further destabilize their influence over our nation.

We’re going to talk about the 2nd Amendment in another installment of this post but I’ll give you a teaser: 2A doesn’t mention ammunition. It uses the phrase, “bear arms” which specifically refers to the right to possess and use weapons. Though it may be implied that weapons require ammunition, the language doesn’t specifically state that. That’s a ‘Thinking Outside the Box’ pathway to limiting the amount of ammunition an individual can possess and the destructive power of that ammunition. It represents another tool in the toolbox to gain more leverage over the NRA in the same way that getting religion out of the equation for gay rights gave that community leverage over the unadulterated bias that has and (to a lesser degree) continues to vex them. 

5. Mobilize and persevere. Here’s the thing. You can say what you want about the NRA but you can’t deny one basic truth: they are incredibly organized and motivated. The NRA plays the long game and they play it with machine-like consistency. Again, they are extremists. They do not negotiate. When anyone challenges them, they don’t give the slightest consideration to any point of view other than their own. They double down on their established talking points, vehemently attack their critics, retreat to their bunker, and wait for the heat to die down. Then, they go back to business as usual.

Their core constituents are equally as extremist in their attitudes and actions (we’ll be talking about this more in a future installment). Here’s a perfect example. Would you like to know what happened to the NRA immediately following the Parkland shooting? Their donations tripled. TRIPLED!! According to a recent article (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nra-donations-tripled-after-parkland-florida-shooting/ar-BBKPitI), they collected almost $250,000 in individual contributions in January 2018. In February (and keep in mind the shooting occurred in the middle of the month), that number jumped to just under $780,000! That, my friends, is motivation in action.

It’s also fear. The NRA’s core constituents immediately understood that their organization would come under intense criticism regarding the Parkland shooting. Having drunk that organization’s amoral, paranoia-infused Kool Aid, they feel they’re “under attack” and that their guns are going to get taken away. They’re absolutely right about the former and delusional about the latter (with the eventual exception of assault style weapons). The response of the Parkland kids and the massive wave of momentum they’ve been generating has rattled the NRA’s cage in a way it hasn’t been rattled in a long, long time. Regardless, they are deeply entrenched in the political and sociological landscape of America. The Parkland kids and we, their supporters, need to understand it will take intense, long-term, sustained effort to dig them out. We must be equally as militant as the NRA itself. We cannot equivocate, negotiate, or hesitate. With regard to untrenching the NRA, mercy has left the building. This is a scorched-earth campaign.

I’m going to stop here for now. In the next installment(s) of this post, we’re going to talk about the 2nd Amendment, the demented ideology of the NRA and their hardcore constituents, and some other related issues.

Tune back in soon: Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel…

Thank you for reading. 

~~~

Nobody Sits

 by Steven B. Orkin

 

 

 

President Josiah Bartlet enters an event room of the White House for an appearance. The crowd respectfully rises to their feet with the exception of ultraconservative journalist Dr. Jenna Jacobs, who has been highly critical of the President. Bartlet notices this, halts his advance across the room and approaches her. Some preliminary dialogue occurs between them, leading to the following exchange:

President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.”
          - From ‘The West Wing.’ Episode: ‘The Midterms’ (2000). Source: IMDB.com.

I love this quote, taken from what is quite arguably the best television show ever created (still on Netflix, last time I checked). I could spend this entire post talking about the perils of rigid orthodoxy over rational interpretation (and I may, on a future occasion) but today, I’m here to talk about that last line and how it relates to the ‘Take a Knee’ phenomena started by professional football player Colin Kaepernick that has spread to other professional, college, and even high school sports teams.

Before I get going here, I want to convey that I understand that this is a very charged matter. Though I have strong feelings about it, I believe zealotry in any form about virtually any issue is dangerous. Consequently, I consider myself to be deeply patriotic but not nationalistic. I love my country. For all its problems, I believe it provides us with rights, freedoms, and opportunities you can’t get anywhere else in the world. On occasions when I criticize it, it’s BECAUSE I love it, because I see what it can be. Any criticism I have is driven by exasperation, not hate. My goal here, as it is with most any topic I elect to explore in this blog, is to provide a nuanced perspective on this issue. In short, stick with me, despite my initial statement, which is this:

On the surface, I find ‘Take a Knee’ to be juvenile, ungrateful, and disrespectful.

President Bartlet is 100% right. Nobody sits.

As strongly as I feel that our current President is corrupt, incompetent, and unstable, if I were present at an event at which he appeared, I would stand because that’s what the OFFICE deserves, even if the guy holding it doesn’t.

The national anthem deserves the same respect.

If Colin Kaepernick had started wearing an American flag with a big “No” symbol across it, he would have taken a LOT more heat than he has. Why is the anthem any different? Why is it okay to use it as a weapon of protest but it’s not okay to use the flag for such purposes or to sit when the President stands?

We’re going to get to the NFL in a minute but let me state initially that I think they were cowards with regard to Kaepernick. As far as I’m concerned, they should have fined him and every other professional athlete that ‘took a knee’ $5,000.00 a day until they stopped disrespecting the national anthem.

There’s an inherent hypocrisy in a multi-million dollar athlete protesting a core symbol of the very country that allowed him to be on that field in the first place and make an annual salary that surpasses what most of us will make in our entire lives. On that front, he should be ashamed of himself. I don’t feel you can compartmentalize or isolate using the anthem or the flag as a weapon of protest to a single issue. I understand that that may have been Kaepernick’s intent, but that’s not good enough. With issues like this, you have to consider how the truth is likely to be perceived, not just the truth itself. Kneeling, sitting, or staying off the field during the national anthem is divisive in a nonproductive way. When you think about it, ‘Take a Knee’ has probably done more to leech credibility from the core motivation for doing it than it has done to support it.

On a related side-note, it’s likewise ignorant and divisive of others to cast aspersions against those who share my initially critical perspective by saying things like, “So, you’re okay with police brutalizing African Americans but you’re mad at Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem?”

Despite some rather prominent progressive opinions to the contrary, I truly believe this is a matter of patriotism and respect for our nation and its icons. It is NOT a repudiation or dismissal of the very real and profound challenges we face with regard to racial inequality, police brutality, and other such issues, or the right to draw attention to those issues through civil acts of protest. Indeed, the right to protest is endemic to our ideals as Americans. Where would we be as a nation if not for ‘rabble-rousers’ like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. having the courage to stand up and declare, “This is not acceptable.”?

Respect for the national anthem and the moral imperative to draw attention to society’s ills are not mutually exclusive. Do we as citizens of this country have the right to deface the American flag or metaphorically deface the national anthem? Yes, we do. Contrary to popular opinion, it’s not technically a crime to burn or otherwise deface the American flag and the matter of ‘defacing’ the national anthem has never been considered in a court of law so far as I know. Therefore, the question is not “Can we?” It’s “Should we?”

I cannot think of a single issue facing our society that would make me okay with personally defacing or destroying an American flag as an action of protest, so my take is “No, we shouldn’t.” My take is that there are other ways to facilitate change and overcome our national and cultural challenges.

But...

Of course, it’s complicated. Shockingly, there’s a lot more to most issues we contend with as a society than can be conveyed in a 15 second sound byte or 280 character tweet (don’t get me started on how I feel about Twitter, even outside of Trump’s maladjusted abuse of it).

Let’s look at the flip side.

We’ll start with the NFL. I’m using them rather than the NBA, NHL, MLB, or any other pro sports governing body because the NFL is ground zero for ‘Take a Knee.’

I’m not a sports guy. On very rare occasions, if a basketball, football, or baseball game happens to be on, I’ll watch for a while, But I don’t care how “my team” is doing. I don’t care about the World Series or the Super Bowl (though I have to say, last year’s SB was nothing short of spectacular). I don’t know any stats, I don’t know the players, I don’t own any sports logo-bearing products. I don’t schedule time to watch games and I don’t check the scores online. The closest I come to being a “sports fan” is the Olympics. I love the competitive spirit, national pride, and aspirations of excellence associated with them.

Anyway, the fact that I’m not a sports guy does not make me inherently critical of those who are or of the organizations that govern the teams. That said, I can’t deny I’m skeptical of any large corporation. They tend to drift into the sociopath spectrum of behavior in terms of how they do things and how they make their money, and it’s never enough.

I read recently that the NFL is fairly militant about keeping the game and the players free of political statements or any other ‘buzzkill’ commentary constituting individual expression. To a good extent, I understand that. Most viewers and attendees pretty much just want to turn their brains off and watch the game. They don’t look to the NFL as a political arena.

Consequently, my understanding is that NFL players are not permitted to alter their uniforms in any way or do anything in the context of a game to draw attention to themselves outside of their physical performance. I again understand this to a degree in that each player is part of a team and it doesn’t look right or feel right to have everyone on that team wearing different color jerseys or each bearing a unique message. If a player is having contractual negotiation issues with management, they can’t break out their Sharpies and write, “Will play for food” across their backs. In fact, I don’t think they can so much as wear a black armband to voice a message of condolence or solidarity.

That’s where Colin Kaepernick got into trouble. He’s obviously a passionate guy who cares about the problems and challenges African Americans and other people of color face in our society. I think he sees that it’s not just a ‘brown people’ problem. It’s an American society problem and he cares enough about it to want to use the stage he performs on to bring more attention to it.

So, how does a guy with a conscience make his statement to the world when the environment he works in doesn’t give him the latitude to do it?

He uses something that isn’t explicitly covered by his employer’s restrictions.

I doubt the NFL’s standards of conduct include a bullet point comprehensively specifying that all players are required to be present and standing at field-side during the national anthem. Even if they do, there probably isn’t a conclusive explanation of what the repercussions are of defying such an edict. If they don’t specifically address this issue, I think they should, but it’s become such an explosive issue, there would be a lot of blow-back about it that has nothing to do with the core intent of such a policy, which is to respect our national icons.

I understand why Kaepernick chose the gesture of kneeling. When he first decided to make his statement, he had no way of knowing how far-reaching the effects of his individual protest would have. He needed something simple but dramatic that he could do on his own. The problem is that he didn’t realize how offensive kneeling would be in that context to so many people. Once other sports figures started replicating the gesture, he became the focal point of a hurricane of controversy. Instead of a guy with a message, he was painted as a malcontent who hated America. His career has been fundamentally damaged by this inaccurate portrait and I think we should give him a break. I believe his heart is in the right place and that he should be respected for his efforts to use the platform of his celebrity to draw attention to authentically profound issues in our society.

About a year ago, in response to the nationwide controversy regarding ‘Take a Knee’, something very interesting happened. The players started doing something different. Instead of kneeling, they started linking arms during the national anthem. You could almost hear the ‘click’ of ideological tumblers falling into place, unlocking the door to delivering the message that ‘Take a Knee’ was intended to convey.  Even the misanthropic Trump expressed support of this revised gesture, and on that point, I absolutely agree with him. Maybe we should start calling it ‘The Linked Movement.’

Think about the message linking arms sends. It is a simple but incontrovertible declaration of solidarity. It does not disrespect the thematic message and meaning of the national anthem or the nation it represents. It enhances them. It draws attention to what really matters. At the end of the day, it doesn’t make a difference whether you’re white, brown, yellow, red, or for that matter, an orange-skinned Oompa-Loompa. We’re all in this together. We have far more commonalities than differences. Following the Golden Rule is a recipe for peaceful coexistence between individuals, communities, and nations. Conversely, victimization of one facet of humanity ultimately harms us all. We stand or fall as one.

And that, my friends, is what America is all about.

Thank you for reading.

~~~