Kneeling for the Anthem Is Back in the News Again

On Wednesday, the NFL announced that for the upcoming season, teams would be fined if players kneel during the playing of the National Anthem before games begin. The commentary that had calmed down as last season wore on is back again full force. The frustrating thing to me is how much of what is known about the protest is whitewashed and misremembered. In the public mind, the protests are now morphed into a caring about the black community and First Amendment protest. I thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the initial news stories of Colin Kaepernick kneeling to see if there is something to learn by doing so. I also want to link to a few comments that I think get to the heart of why people are so annoyed by the kneelers.

Let’s start by revisiting the beginnings of Kaepernick’s discontent. In this article, dated August 27, 2016, we remember that Kaepernick’s first act was not to kneel, but to sit during the playing of the national anthem. 

When asked why he was sitting, Kaepernick said:

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Later in the article, Kaepernick is quoted again:

“This is not something that I am going to run by anybody,” he said. “I am not looking for approval. I have to stand up for people that are oppressed. . . . If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right.”

Later on, the article gives additional information of where Kaepernick’s career stood at this time:

The former Super Bowl starting quarterback's decision to go public comes while he is fighting for his football life with the 49ers, who drafted him in the second round in 2011. He lost his starting job last season after being one of the most promising players in the NFL during his run under former coach Jim Harbaugh. 

Over the past few months, his relationship with management has turned sour. He requested a trade last spring, which never came. He also has spent most of the offseason rehabilitating from operations to his left (non-throwing) shoulder, his hand and knee. His recovery left him unable to fully compete with Blaine Gabbert for months and has him seemingly in a bind to regain his starting job. 

He made his preseason debut against the Packers and played in the second quarter, completing two of six passes for 14 yards. He looked as rusty as you'd expect from someone who has not played since last November.

The mis-remembering is clearly shown in this column by Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star Tribune (I have placed my responses in italic to Souhan’s bullet points below):

. . . That’s essentially what NFL owners and Roger Goodell did this week—take a stance that will appease the White House and a segment of fans, at the expense of empathy for black players protesting the killing of unarmed black men by police officers.

Remember? That’s what this was always about, before the story was intentionally muddied. So before we drink another noun smoothie, let’s ground ourselves in facts and history:

• Colin Kaepernick did not insult the military when he knelt. He adopted the advice of former Green Beret Nate Boyer. “Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother’s grave, you know, to show respect,” Boyer said.

Kaepernick did not say anything about Green Beret Nate Boyer. He said very clearly that he was “not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people.”

• The NFL didn’t care about players standing for the anthem until 2009. Around that time, the Department of Defense began paying millions to NFL teams to promote the military with flyovers, enlistment campaigns and anthem performances. In 2015, Arizona senators Jeff Flake and John McCain said that about $5.4 million in taxpayer dollars had been paid to 14 NFL teams between 2011 and 2014 to promote the military. The NFL began celebrating the military when it was paid to do so.

Standing for the anthem before NFL games is a long tradition. Bud Grant famously had his players practice standing for the anthem for ½ hour during training camp. But now we’re going to pretend this is a recent practice? Also, although it technically isn’t a rule, it is noted in the game operation’s manual. In the manual, it does say that team’s can be fined and lose draft picks for players not standing for the anthem.

It also should be noted that $5.4 million over four years comes out to $1.35 million per year. Divided by 14 teams, that comes out to roughly $96,500 per team each of the four years. We can argue about whether or not this is a good idea to spend tax dollars in this way, but that amount of money is chump change to an NFL owner. Pace Souhan, I don't think it was the difference between celebrating the military and not celebrating the military.

• Even the trailblazing black athletes we now celebrate were treated badly when they were breaking new ground. Jackie Robinson, one of our greatest heroes, said: “I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag. I know that I am a black man in a white world.”

This is true. It was also spoken by Robinson at a time of legal discrimination in the United States.

• No quarterback with Kaepernick’s résumé—healthy, in his prime, with a strong touchdown-to-interception ratio, having come within one completion of winning a Super Bowl—has ever remained unemployed.

This is arguable. The article linked above notes that Kaepernick had lost his starting job the year before, that he was returning from injury, and that he had looked rusty in the previous preseason game.

Also, Souhan does not tell the reader that Kaepernick did eventually get back the starter job in San Fran in 2016. He appeared in 12 games that year, starting 11 of them. His record as a starter was 1–10. It is disingenuous to bring up the Super Bowl season from 2012 as an argument that Kaepernick is currently a starting-level quarterback. Five years is a long time ago in the NFL.

• Kaepernick was protesting not the military but the unjustified killings of unarmed black Americans by police officers.

Kind of. He was protesting the killings of black people by police. But he said in the sentence before that “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” Most people would say that if you cannot show pride in your country’s flag, how can you show pride in your country’s military—the military of an oppressive country.

• There are 32 key figures in the NFL’s recent decision to punish players who kneel for the anthem — 31 team owners (49ers owner Jed York abstained) and Commissioner Roger Goodell. With the exception of Jaguars owner Shad Kahn, they are all white.

This is true. And yes, Kahn did vote for the decision.

• Pro Football Talk is reporting that Kaepernick’s collusion suit against the league has shown that multiple teams viewed Kaepernick as a starting-caliber QB.

Who knows? Maybe they view Kaepernick as starting-caliber QB for other teams, but not their own. This is hearsay.

Also, the point must be made here that Kaepernick very clearly understood that he was placing his career in danger because of his stance, and he was okay with that. “This is not something that I am going to run by anybody,” he said. “I am not looking for approval. I have to stand up for people that are oppressed. . . . If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right.” In fact, his fame will only grow if he never plays in the NFL again.

• NFL teams regularly draft and sign players who have broken the law or been accused of violence against women.

This is true. People do break the law and pay the penalty for their actions. Does Souhan think that the NFL should ban players that have broken the law? I do not think so. Each team is capable of judging the lawbreaking of each player and making a decision about whether that player is worth paying money to play on their team. What does this have to do with Kaepernick?

• There was a time when the NFL cared about equality. In the early 1990s, the league pulled the Super Bowl from Arizona because the state refused to make Martin Luther King Day a paid holiday.

Are they only asking black players to stand for the anthem? How is this about equality?

• The Super Bowl champion Eagles had several players protest last season, without losing games or revenues.

When times are good for a football team, the fans will live with a lot of things that they wouldn't stand for if the team was playing poorly. To me, standing for the anthem isn’t a bottom-line, money decision.

But enough with Souhan. The ultimate point (which neither Souhan nor anybody else ever gets to) is what is the ending of all these protests. When will we know if America is back in the good graces of Kaepernick and the dozens of other players who kneel? In Souhan’s mind, what can the people of America do to right these wrongs? It’s never spoken because there is nothing that can be done to erase the sins of the past. To the protesters, the only thing we can do is destroy existing America and rebuild it with something even better. I am passionately opposed to the destruction of America.

A few other points in closing:

1. I am prolife. I am appalled by the 1 million plus abortions that take place in the U.S. each year. If I were a professional athlete could I count on people like Jim Souhan to support me if I knelt during the playing of the anthem to protest the abortion industry? Free speech and all of that—or could I expect him to point to the game operations manual and insist that I follow the rules.

2. Mark Steyn is an insightful writer and commentator on the culture. He has a wonderful article about kneeling players from last fall. I would like to quote an important part of the article:

 It's not a question of what you're free to do, but of what is seemly to do. And a shared sense of what is seemly is vital to keeping any society functioning and, ultimately, free. To see it in terms of legal absolutism—one has the “right” to take a knee, just as one has the “right” to shout “F***!” during your grandmother's funeral—is reductive, and diminishing. Down in Oz last year, I quoted Lord Moulton, an English judge who went on to hold during the Great War the enviable title of “Director-General of the Explosives Department.” Moulton divided society into three sectors, of which he considered the most important to be the “middle land” between law and absolute freedom. At one end, one is free to do anything; at the other, one is forbidden to do certain things; but in between lies the domain of manners, in which the individual has to be “trusted to obey self-imposed law.”

“In this domain,” wrote Moulton, “we act with greater or lesser freedom from constraint, on a continuum that extends from a consciousness of duty through a sense of what is required by public spirit to good form appropriate in a given situation.”

Almost any point on that continuum covers the minimal civic act of standing for a national anthem. If you love your country, your “consciousness of duty” commands you to respect its flag and anthem: you need no statute to direct you to do so. On the other hand, if you feel, as many do, ambivalent about your flag or anthem, “good form appropriate in a given situation” suggests that, out of comity with your neighbors, rising to your feet for a minute or two is the appropriate thing to do. . . .

That presumably is why on Sunday two dozen kneeling Americans decided to rise to their feet for Britain's national anthem. Because they understood that were they to remain kneeling they would be regarded by their London hosts as boorish graceless ignorant clods—which, in fact, they are, with respect to their own anthem. We stand for the anthems of foreigners not out of allegiance but out of Moulton’s “good form.” Standing for other people's anthems is the minimal respect required to transact international relations: At, say, US/Soviet summits, Reagan could have taken a knee to protest Moscow’s human rights record, and Chernenko could have taken a knee to protest that Reagan was a running dog of capitalism and imperialism. But both men remained standing—because that's the minimal requirement for any mutually beneficial relations.

So, when a bunch of pampered poseurs decide to drive a stake through a primal civic ritual, that’s not a small thing. Lord Moulton called it “the domain of manners” because it is literally a land, the public space, a realm. And like any realm it requires a shared anthem and flag. To reduce such things to objects of partisan controversy—whether over racist policing in Democrat cities or transgender bathrooms or anything else—is to shrink the land of manners. Which ought to be disturbing—because, as Lord Moulton put it, “The real greatness of a nation, its true civilization, is measured by the extent of this land.”

By that measure, our greatness is shriveling fast. The land of “good form appropriate in a given situation” has been encroached upon remorselessly, to the point where everything can merely be legal or illegal, and therefore to render any judgment of our own upon the merits of this or that would be presumptuous. Hence all these ridiculous discussions on the “constitutional” right of bazillionaire narcissists and their unlovely employers to shatter one of the small but critical social norms hitherto observed by all: The domain of absolute freedom (they have the right to take a knee!) nibbles away at the domain of manners from one end, and the domain of law answers (the NFL should fire them!) with a response correct in legal terms but which in itself nibbles away at the domain of manners from the other end.

For anyone who wishes to live in a civilized society where the observance of social norms can be safely assumed, this wretched business is a loss—for what remains of social cohesion, for “true civilization” and for “the real greatness of a nation.” A national anthem can be a national anthem or an opportunity for self-expression, but not both. And, if this is yet one more thing that Americans can no longer agree on, if a people lack the minimal social glue to rise reflexively when the band strikes up the first bars of “O-oh, say, can you. . .,” you have to wonder whether anything remains to bind us together at all.

3. And finally, a comment by one of Steyn’s readers, named Jason Cawley:

Why do we have the civic ritual at sporting contests? Because they are “contests,” involving sides that fight to defeat each other on the playing field, in a play imitation of the serious thing called “war.” And we seek to establish before the mock war, that as to real war we are all allies and on the same side. We mark off the sporting contest as only play, as something not to get too caught up in or upset about, in which either side can try to win and try hard, but everything should be sporting, because it is a game and not real war. As to real war, we solemnly acknowledge its existence before contests to distinguish one from the other, to assure the fans of the rival team that we are not enemies, that all the sporting event will remain within civil bounds.

The protests disrupt this by saying that a state of war exists in real life between some of the contestants and everyone else in attendance, on the field or off. They dissent from the pledge of mutual alliance at the beginning of the game, to let everyone know they are not at peace with us, and that they are not playing, but are in deadly earnest not our allies and not on our side.

Part of the reason that there is so much anger about this protest on both sides is that the reasons for supporting or opposing the kneeling are so deeply felt by so many. And it is my theory that most people are not capable of adequately expressing themselves in writing or in speaking about such deeply felt ideals. 

When it comes to defending traditional marriage or standing for the anthem, many people will say things that are offensive or cast their opinions in a poor light because they are upset, but can’t properly say what they would like to say without going directly to emotions. Part of the reason I write in this blog is to become a better communicator. The good news is that I can point to Steyn and Cawley, who very capably make points that many people like me find so hard to express about our exasperation about kneeling for the anthem.

20 Obscure Pop Songs That I Like from the 1970s

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been listening to popular music for decades. And as time goes by, it gets more difficult each year to find music that sounds fresh or interesting—especially music from the nearly-exhausted early decades of the rock era. I would guess that is true for other people as well. So I am going to suggest 20 somewhat obscure songs from the 1970s that I like quite a bit.

The 1970s was the era of AM radio, disco, and the rise of album-oriented rock. Though this era was filled with riffs, melodies, storytelling, and singable tunes, there were the beginnings of alternative music in this decade. My list skews a little bit toward soft rock, but there are a variety of styles here nonetheless. Enjoy!

20. “On the Road” by John Denver
To me, this song has a palpable sense of melancholy underlying the lyrics. The boy who is telling the story seems to enjoy the adventure his family is on, but the family is literally going nowhere. It touches on a mythical American story that is often romanticized, but seems to be slowing disappearing.

19. “Out on the Tiles” by Led Zeppelin
Not many songs by a supergroup like Led Zeppelin could be considered obscure, but “Out on the Tiles” is one song that even fans of Led Zeppelin may not be familiar with. It’s the last song on the first side of Led Zeppelin III. Much like “Cry, Baby, Cry” is an obscure Beatles song that nonetheless sounds so typically like the Beatles, “Out on the Tiles” is a song that sounds so perfectly like Led Zeppelin. There is the wandering guitar riff that is punctuated by Bonham’s drumming along with Plant’s unmistakable vocals. It all builds to a pounding chorus. The only downside of this song is the unnecessarily long outro.

18. “Speed of Sound” by Chris Bell
One half of the writing team for Big Star, Chris Bell recorded music for a solo album in 1974–1975. The album, though, was not released until 1992. The best song from these recordings, in my view, is “Speed of Sound,” which incorporates a lot of singer-songwriter elements from the early 1970s without sounding dated.

17. “Home Bound” by Ted Nugent
How about a instrumental from Ted Nugent and his band? It’s built on a fairly simple riff played on the top three strings, but as the melody repeats, it builds into a martial middle before exploding into a rocking ending.

16. “From Me to You” by Janis Ian
Back in the days of vinyl records, when dropping the needle on a hit song, a kid might accidently get the end of the previous song. Or when done listening to a song, you might get the beginning of the following song before you picked up the needle to drop it on your favorite again. In this way, I have come to like both the songs preceding and following “At Seventeen” from Janis Ian’s Between the Lines record. “When the Party’s Over” starts side one, and it is quite good, but even better is the third song on the first side, “From Me to You.” The descending acoustic guitar riff leads into this melodic, but still energetic song.

15. “Two Hangmen” by Mason Proffitt
This song is almost too well-known to be considered obscure, but I placed it on this list because it doesn’t even show up as an entry on Wikipedia. Although originally penned as a hippie protest against square, mainstream thought, I think that it is interesting that those who are worried about “the seed of thought” spreading would be the exact opposite of the political divide today in 2018.

14. “Love Song” by Paper Lace
Paper Lace mostly is known for two pop songs, “Billy Don’t Be a Hero” and “The Night Chicago Died.” Our family had one of their several greatest hits collections (it didn’t matter which greatest hits collection we had, because all their collections had mostly the same songs, just in a different order). Because of multiple listenings of the record as a kid, I grew up liking several of Paper Lace’s lesser hits. One song, especially, I still find enjoyable to listen to: “Love Song.” Paper Lace tried to corner the market on story-songs that were specific to a historical time. “Billy Don’t Be a Hero” is during wartime, perhaps the U.S. Civil War. “The Night Chicago Died” during Prohibition in gangland Chicago. “Love Song” is seemingly set during medieval times, with knights jousting and ladies waiting for their champions.

13. “Eclipse” by John Denver
A very mellow album track from Back Home Again, “Eclipse” shows up in one or two retrospectives, even though it was never released as a single. John Denver tried through his lyrics to make people appreciate and think about nature, and this was one of his better efforts.

12. “I Can Feel Him in the Morning” by Grand Funk Railroad
Hated by the critics, but loved by fans, Grand Funk Railroad sold a lot of records in the early 1970s. They were considered rock lightweights, but they have several good songs. One song of theirs that I especially like is a kind of churchy, gospel song from Survival called “I Can Feel Him in the Morning.” The obvious subject of the song would be God or Jesus, though the “Him” of the title is never named. On subsequent listenings to the second verse, I began to wonder if the “Him” is someone a little more sinister.

11. “You Could Have Been a Lady” by April Wine
From the very early years of the Canadian rock band, April Wine, we have a minor hit that feels several years ahead of its time. The arching lead guitar over the driving rhythm sounds like later Ted Nugent or Steve Miller Band.

10. “Tomorrow Is Another Day” and “Someone’s Waiting for You” by Shelby Flint
Choosing two songs here is kind of cheating, but I couldn’t pick just one song of these two from the soundtrack to the Disney movie, The Rescuers. When image and music are woven together like in a soundtrack for a movie, then you have nostalgia cubed.

9. “Double Life” by The Cars
To me, the Cars are an underrated American rock band. They were at the front of new wave that was taking off in the late 1970s, but they still could rock. Their first album is a definite classic, but to follow that up with Candy-O is pretty amazing. One of the deeper tracks on Candy-O is the late night driving, big-space sound of “Double Life.” It just grooves along and weaves a great mood.

8. “Sweet Head” by Davie Bowie
Recorded in the fall of 1971 for the Ziggy Stardust album, “Sweet Head” was not included on the original release (most likely because of the lyrics). It was included in the 1990 re-release, and that is how I first heard the song. Whatever you think of the lyrical content, the song itself is rocking and melodic at the same time. I place it as a top 5 Bowie song.

7. “Hard to Be Friends” by Rita Coolidge and Kris Kristofferson
Married in 1973, Rita Coolidge and Kris Kristofferson released a duet album later the same year that includes this song. Like many songs in the early ’70s, “Hard to Be Friends” is spare in its accompaniment and not over-produced. With a beautiful slide guitar and luscious vocal melody, I have really come to like this song.

6. “It’s Up to You” by John Denver
The third song from the excellent Back Home Again album by John Denver on this list, I like this song for the bouncy riff, the banjo, the build-up to the bridge, and the entire ’70s feel to the song. This is truly a song of its time, but it also manages to transcend its time—it sounds as fresh today as it did in 1974.

5. “Substitute” by Clout
While visiting Scotland in the summer of 1978, my siblings and I were somewhat in tune with the Scottish pop songs of the summer. “The Man with a Child in His Eyes,” “A Little Bit of Soap,” and “You’re the One That I Want” were all hits that summer, but my favorite was a cover song from a South African girl group called Clout. “Substitute” was originally recorded by The Righteous Brothers, but I really liked the female lead vocal.

4. “Birds” by Neil Young
I look at After the Gold Rush as a conscious decision by Neil Young to begin the ’70s on a mellower, less chaotic note. Most of the music from this album is quiet and personal. I like the title track quite a bit, but even better is this album cut from side 2. “Birds” is a simply sad song of a couple breaking up.

3. “Diamond Smiles” by The Boomtown Rats

Near the end of the decade, Bob Geldof and The Boomtown Rats got their biggest hit with “I Don’t Like Mondays,” but it is the song that follows that album opener that I like. “Diamond Smiles” is a story song with the surprise ending, in this case, the woman who hangs herself at a party. The little social comments are what keeps it interesting. This song reminds me a bit of “Ode to Billy Joe.” Is there an English Gothic genre of music?

2. “No Time to Lose” by Tarney Spencer Band
The mid to late ’70s included a lot of album-oriented rock from faceless bands. They sold albums that featured art, not the band, on the cover of the albums. I don’t know if they were trying to mimic Led Zeppelin or just didn’t want to be recognized, but a minor hit by the Tarney-Spencer Band is one of the best AOR songs of this era.

1. “Changes” by Olivia Newton-John
I saw an old Conan O’Brien show where he was interviewing Oliva Newton-John. He asked her to guess his favorite ONJ song, which was “Suddenly.” If I were to ask Olivia that question, the answer would be “Changes,” a song that she actually wrote. Included on her first greatest hits album, “Changes” tells the story of a marriage breaking up. It is both melancholic and melodic with a sweeping string section over the acoustic guitar—a lovely song in all respects.

A Moral and Religious People

John Adams, the second president of the United States, is quoted, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

This quote has come to my mind as I think about the recent school shooting in Sante Fe, Texas. On days like today, defending the Second Amendment is becoming the equivalent of defending market-based health care. Health care in America is so expensive and bureaucratic at this point, it's hard to make a case for market-based care. Really, what is the difference?

So too with the Constitutional right to bear arms. Our culture is so immoral and debased at this point in our country's history, it is hard to make the case that we are a people made for the Second Amendment.

My son does trap shooting for the local high school. In my brief experience, it seems like this is a great sport for teenagers, and my son is enjoying it. It is a fast growing sport in Minnesota that thousands of kids participate in. The kids I've seen respect the firearms, they respect the rules, and they are learning so much through this participation. But some day—in five years, or ten years, or twenty years—someone will get shot and that will be the end of high school trap shooting.

How is it that in the past in this country so many people owned guns and yet there was so few instances of mass school shootings? I think the character of the American people has changed, and because of that change, our government will need to consider more limits to Second Amendment freedoms—in fact, the people will demand it.

"Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people." As I think again about that quote, I understand that as we become a less moral and less religious people, we are in danger of losing the freedoms promised in the Constitution.