Sorry Nike

One of the great aspects of our free market system is that businesses are free to express themselves in their advertising campaigns.  Some of the greatest ads still resonate with those of us old enough to remember.  Do you recall "Where's the beef?"  More contemporaneously, some Budweiser commercials in past Super Bowls were pretty good as well.  The key point is that the businesses are free from government control in their advertising, per the First Amendment.  Consumer reaction, however, is something else altogether.

Sure, Nike is free to put out a new advertising campaign and say damn near anything.  But consumers are equally free to react to their campaign.  

Sorry Nike, you are not even close with Kaepernick and, "Believe in something.  Even if it means sacrificing everything."

Going without exorbitant pay and notoriety may meet the definition of "sacrificing everything" for some, but it falls sort in my view.  Losing a Marine's life in combat, an attempted rescue of a drowning stranger, a fireman's life rushing into a burning building to save children, or a police officer standing up to an armed robber is a better definition of "sacrificing everything."

Sure, Kaepernick is not legally prohibited from taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem, an expression of free speech the government can not prohibit.  But he so at his own risk for other negative consequences.  No business MUST hire a specific individual, for example.

Standing (pardon the pun) for one's beliefs is crucially important in our nation, even when doing so brings criticism, private and public.  For that, Kaepernick deserves credit.  But such credit is now severely cheapened by what is surely a very large paycheck from Nike.  Seems like a man's principle can be bought.

I disagree with Kaepernick's actions, though supporting his freedom to do so.  And actions have consequences, as he is learning.  Some of those actions involve some businesses deciding they do not want to hire Mr. Kaepernick, which is their decision to make.  I also support Nike's action in creating an advertising campaign of their choosing.  And this action has consequences as well.

Listen to and watch consumers react.    

Thursday gray beard views

It might be taken from this New York Post story that Colin Kaepernick was more interested in money than his protests.  By passing on a job offer, admittedly for less money, he also passed on being able to continue his protest on field.  Of course, one might compare less money to no money.

Thinking of his protest, he's my take.  He can and certainly did choose to "take a knee" during the playing of the National Anthem.  And teams have chosen not to hire him.  To those who scream First Amendment, that actually prohibits the government from "abridging the freedom of speech."  Private entities are not so constrained, unless specific black letter law or court opinions refer.  A private, read business entity, can assign consequences to employees for their speech (which courts have determined includes some actions).  The actual First Amendment wording:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."  Mr. Kaepernick, there are consequences for our actions.  Some pleasant, some not.

On another hot button topic, this Washington Post photo story looked at teachers training to carry firearms on campus.  From limited experience on three school campuses (a middle school, a university, and a combined middle/high school), after a 30 year active duty military including an assignment in providing physical security, I have concerns.  From the limited experienced previously described, I'd fear arming the wannabe, weak willed, hesitant in a firefight, unwilling to take a life (those thinking just pointing a weapon ends the gunfight), and general teachers and staff.  To be sure, there are some that could/would do that which is necessary to protect the students and end the threat, those who would march to the sound of gunfire and react appropriately.  But they are a small number at each site.  Of course, others most likely would not seek to arm themselves.  But there may be those seeking to impress or believing a gun safety course properly prepares them.  Further, site administrators are not qualified to decide who should/should not be armed.  RIGOROUS, scenario based, realistic CQB (close quarters battle) training and evaluation, qualification, and regular re-qualification run by law enforcement is the right protocol for districts considering arming teachers.  As a fellow veteran observed, shooting holes in paper targets that do not shoot back, all the while wearing ear protectors, isn't all that hard.  Engaging a gunman intent on killing you and others is dramatically, drastically different.

Regarding an earlier blog about #29aday and deaths from DUI/DWI, thought it might be useful to note that on average, 3,287 people per day died in motor vehicle incidents in 2016.  That exceeds the entire population of Provincetown, Cape Cod, Massachusetts; Union, Connecticut; or Blue Ridge, Georgia. 

On a positive note, according to this story, the university of Memphis is offering free tuition to the children and spouses of fallen service members.  Well Done!  And it demonstrates that Congress or state legislatures do not have to be the source of helping others.