The NFL Takes a Knee

The NFL Makes a Bad Business Decision—————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

With all that’s going on in the world and at home lately, I found it odd that the flap over football players kneeling or sitting or remaining off the field during the playing of our national anthem, or engaging in other sorts of childish behavior would command so much attention from the media and from the very highest level of government. After all, it was just another case of football jocks acting like jerks. But revered symbols such as the flag of our nation stir very deep emotions and President Donald Trump is, as we know so well, an emotional person.

 

Colin Kaepernick is an unemployed, second string quarterback whose principal claim to notoriety is that he started the disrespectful and unpatriotic practice of taking a knee while the anthem was being played before games. It was a very bad idea in that it was not at all career-enhancing for him and, as it is turning out, is bad for the business of professional football. The National Football League is, of course, a business and, like other businesses, needs to cater to the customers who pay those outlandish ticket prices and TV bills and buy the over-priced NFL logo merchandise that make it possible for these young men fresh out of school to become young millionaires by playing a game. And most of those customers were quite displeased by this disrespect shown to the flag that they themselves pledge allegiance to, judging from the boos that echoed through the stadiums when other players displayed “solidarity” with Mr. Kaepernick by imitating him.

 

These antics have spawned a controversy that the NFL can ill afford, especially at a time when people are rightly concerned about the dangers of concussions and other serious injuries which inevitably occur when muscular giants collide. Many parents say that they would no longer permit their own children to play the game and many have stopped even watching it. This is very bad for business. Most people acknowledge that freedom of speech includes the right to disrespect the flag but it also gives us the right to criticize those actions. And employers and potential employers have the right to say, as some leagues have, that such actions, being bad for business in that they offend many customers, will be grounds for termination.

 

For my part, I’ve had it with the NFL after nearly a lifetime of being a fan. I’m tired of the greedy owners and the overpaid jocks who think they can foist their political and social views on the fans who overpay to watch them play football, not to stage protests. I don’t put the blame entirely on the players, though. Many of them just don’t know any better, having not yet quite reached mental maturity or perhaps having suffered too many concussions. I blame the owners and league officials who are supposed to be the adults in charge and who have made a very bad business decision by supporting the player-employees at the risk of alienating many if not most of the customers. NFL football, as they will see, is not an inelastic product. There are entertainment alternatives and life will surely go on without it as I’ve already discovered.

 

I was a season ticket holder for over two decades before the San Diego Chargers became the Carson Chargers, continuing their losing ways before tiny crowds that can’t even fill a 27,000-seat soccer stadium when they could have continued to draw over 65,000 by remaining in San Diego until their new stadium was ready. Talk about bad business decisions. But my decision to stop watching NFL football had nothing to do with that. I just got tired of watching fools in football uniforms dancing and prancing in the end zone as if they never scored a touchdown before or even after making a routine tackle. You don’t see baseball players behaving like circus clowns. They celebrate with high-fives in the dugout or as a team after the game. They have to be coaxed sometimes to even take a bow after hitting a home run. That’s class and good sportsmanship. Too many football players don’t have either.

 

If Mr. Kaepernick and his copycats are protesting racial injustice, they picked a very poor way to do it in disrespecting the national symbol of the one of the few countries that permit such behavior. If they refuse to pledge allegiance to their own country that provided them the opportunity to prosper, then perhaps they should resolve not to accept any of the benefits of U. S. citizenship. Better yet, find some other country that offers better social justice and opportunity. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, if you disrespect the flag that I and my team mates in the military served under, then you are no longer welcome on my TV screens. And please don’t tell me that these actions don’t disrespect the flag and the nation. If you believe that, you obviously just don’t get it.

October 25, 2017

The North Korea Problem

Is a Military Response Inevitable?————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

President Donald Trump’s bellicose speech before the U.N. General Assembly appeared to shock the diplomatic community. Diplomats at Turtle Bay are not accustomed to such talk from Western leaders who are expected to speak in polite, dulcet tones that offend no one. Only enemies of the U.S. or Israel are permitted to use harsh, blunt language or issue threats.

 

Well, good for Mr. Trump. The U.N. diplomats who make a very comfortable living delivering content-free speeches, framing toothless resolutions and condemning Israel with regularity really need to hear some blunt talk of the sort they haven’t heard since John Bolton’s brief service as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. The plain, politically incorrect truth is that the United Nations is a feckless, bloated organization that serves as a forum for attacks on the U.S., Israel and the West in general. It has created more problems than it has solved. Once hailed as a world government body that would resolve all future international conflicts peacefully, it has been a spectacular failure and waste of money. The U.S. embarrasses itself by hosting it on its soil and funding nearly a quarter of its expenses.

 

American liberals, some of the former colonial powers of Europe and other advocates of peace at any price, were quick to criticize Trump’s tough talk, likening it to a schoolyard bully’s response to a rival, unworthy of a civilized chief of state, especially the most powerful in the world. But Mr. Trump is not your usual politician. He is a businessman and blunt, direct talk is his specialty. Consider what he said, to wit: If Rocket Man attacks our territory or that of our allies, his regime will be totally destroyed. That, folks, is the essence of nuclear deterrence and it is imperative that the ones you wish to deter have no doubt whatsoever as to your intentions and resolve. Past administrations warned that they would not permit North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons but they did. That puts their credibility in doubt. Would the Obama Administration actually have reacted to an attack against us or our allies or would John Kerry or Hillary Clinton still be negotiating while missiles fell on Hawaii?

 

I’m somewhat amazed at the number of “experts” among the pundits and diplomats who purport to “believe” they know what’s in Kim Jong Un’s mind and what we should do about it. (Full disclosure: I’m not an expert.) How can they possibly know for sure? It’s pretty clear what Mr. Kim wants, however. He wants the U.S. and its troops, bases, ships and aircraft off the Korean peninsula and preferable out of Japan, too. He also wants a reunified Korea under terms favorable to him and nuclear parity with the U.S. Some apparently think that we should agree to this and just hope for the best, just as we have allowed countries like Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons. But other countries, except for Iran, haven’t threatened us with nuclear destruction or targeted our troops and bases. Mr. Kim is not threatening other nations unless they conspire with the U.S. to attack his regime but he now says missile attacks on the U. S. are “inevitable”, so other nations, other than South Korea and Japan who are actually at risk, should really refrain from giving us gratuitous advice on how to deal with these threats.

 

President Trump has said repeatedly that he will not telegraph his intentions to our adversaries. He has also, to his credit, surrounded himself with highly-competent, expert military advisors whom he listens to, unlike some past presidents. If our enemies don’t know what they have in mind, neither do we or the pundits. There may indeed be no good military solution but then again there may be, involving, say, cyber warfare or other clandestine operations that the public is not aware of.

 

Much more can and should be done to pressure China, who, after all contributed to this crisis, which does not benefit them, by their tolerance and trade with this pariah state. If Mr. Trump is serious about threats to cease doing business with any country that does business with Pyongyang, “any country” would include, of course, China. If China is not willing to cut all aid including the fuel North Korea needs to make it through the winter, then perhaps we should make China an offer they can’t refuse. Either do it now or we provide nukes to Japan and South Korea, just to even the playing field.

 

We cannot live under the threat of nuclear blackmail by an impulsive dictator who places little value on human life including the lives of his countrymen. Nor can we abandon South Korea or Japan to his tender mercies. We have no choice but to trust and support our commander-in-chief and his advisors who, after all, inherited this mess as a direct result of the failure of previous administrations to do something about it before it became a crisis.

October 15, 2017

 

The Homeless Problem

Homeless in San Diego—————————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Blessed by a sunny Mediterranean climate and beautiful beaches, San Diego used to call itself “America’s Finest City”. Today, that description no longer fits. “America’s Homeless Capital” would be more appropriate. The known homeless population stands at over 1,200 and growing, increasing by over 25% in the past year alone. Nearly half are without even temporary overnight shelter, living on sidewalks, highway ramps and on and under bridges.

 

Visitors and tourists are shocked at squalid scenes of tents, filthy mattresses and blankets and makeshift shelters as well as the stench of urine and human excrement. Residents, on the other hand, have grown used to it, particularly those who have spent a million dollars or so on luxury downtown condos, and who live daily with the odors and trash in their neighborhoods. To compound the problem, the lack of public sanitation facilities has given rise to serious health issues including a Hepatitis A outbreak which has, as of this writing, killed 16. In less than a year, San Diego has recorded 421 cases of the disease putting the entire community and visitors at risk.

 

To deal with the homeless problem, Mayor Kevin Faulconer reportedly plans to accept an offer from local business leaders of $1.5 million to erect three huge tents, each providing shelter for up to 250 homeless persons, with perhaps more tents to follow. Locating these tents, which don’t figure to do much for San Diego’s image as a tourist vacation destination, will not be welcomed with much enthusiasm in any neighborhoods and will hardly put a dent in the growing problem of homelessness. In fact, it will probably make matters worse by attracting more homeless people to San Diego.

 

The homeless are attracted to sun belt cities like San Diego because of the gentle climate, relative freedom from storms, heavy precipitation and natural disasters like hurricanes and the presence of abundant public areas. But they are also attracted by the lack of rigorous enforcement by city officials of laws regarding trespassing, theft, panhandling, public intoxication, loitering and public indecency.  Yes, I know; homelessness is not a crime and many of the homeless are not living on the streets by choice. But many others are and intend to remain there. Many have addiction problems and any help they receive is sometimes squandered in supporting an addiction habit.

 

With unemployment at an all-time low, nearly anyone who really wants to work and is physically able to can find work of some kind in order to afford modest shelter. There is dignity in any kind of honest labor but there is no dignity in living in squalor on a sidewalk. A homeless problem of this magnitude is a fairly recent phenomenon, largely a result of legal decisions protecting the mentally-ill from being institutionalized against their will and determinations that the homeless had certain rights to remain in public places. The homeless do have rights, of course, and those who need and want our help should receive it but the taxpayers have rights as well. They don’t deserve to have to live daily with the mess, crime and health risks that the homeless problem creates.

 

In addition to the homeless problem, San Diego’s streets and sidewalks are a disgrace. Weeds line the highways and ramps, some high enough to block vision. Potholes, trash and crumbling infrastructure are everywhere. Bursting water mains and flooded streets are a regular occurrence. Traffic speed limits are ignored with speeders weaving in and out of traffic lanes. If you drive at the posted speed limit, you are likely to be tailgated. High speed chases frequently add another thrill to the daily commute. Using mobile devices while driving is commonplace. So is driving under the influence. All we need now is for the city to legalize marijuana. Oh, wait. It already has.

America’s eighth largest city is no longer its finest or even remotely in the running and city officials seem clueless or disinterested regarding what to do about it. San Diego may be a major metropolis in terms of population but it is governed like a minor league town. It can’t even support an NBA basketball franchise or an NHL hockey team and it finally fumbled away a coveted NFL franchise. To be certain, these are not the only attractions that make a city great, but they provide entertainment for many of its citizens. They enhance civic pride and give them something to cheer about. Cities less than half the size of San Diego have and support them and treasure them as regional assets. The city is rich in location and climate but is has been utterly lacking in effective leadership for years and it shows. San Diegans deserve better and so do its neighbors.

October 8, 2017

A Newly-Independent Trump

A New, Non-aligned Trump? ————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Nothing President Donald Trump does or says seems to surprise anyone anymore except, perhaps, GOP leaders in Congress. It is a telling commentary on the state of disarray in the Republican Party and the inability of the GOP-controlled Congress to get much of anything done. What many Republicans seem to forget is that Mr. Trump is not a conservative. He is a businessman who has contributed to the campaigns of candidates of both parties and to both liberal and conservative causes. In fact, he spent most of his life as a Democrat.

 

As Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan has noted, Trump did not run as a standard Republican. He defeated all the standard Republicans decisively in the primaries. He did, however, campaign successfully on a platform that included such conservative causes as ending illegal immigration, building the wall, restricting immigration from nations with terrorist ties, repealing and replacing Obamacare and ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program. This platform carried him to an election victory and he promised voters that he would actually keep his election promises. What a novel concept for a politician!

 

But then, Mr. Trump is not your standard politician, either. He is by experience and instinct a dealmaker. He does not accept defeat gracefully. If his people can’t deliver, he fires them and looks for someone who can. No hard feelings, of course. He has made no secret of his disappointment with the GOP leadership in Congress under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan over their inability to get anything of substance done with respect to his agenda in his more than half a year in the White House.

 

He can’t fire elected politicians but if Republican legislators can’t get the job done, he will turn to Democrats as he has previously threatened to do. He knew that a failure to extend the debt ceiling, resulting in a government shutdown with all that is going on in the world and domestically, would be blamed on the party in power and ultimately on the sitting president so he had a “productive” meeting with Chuck (Schumer) and Nancy (Pelosi), who unlike their Republican counterparts, are able to keep their troops in line most of the time when it counts. He agreed to Sen. Schumer’s recommendation to fund the government for only three months, against the recommendation of his own Treasury Secretary and congressional leaders who wanted a longer extension, and to provide a $15.25 billion aid package for victims of Hurricane Harvey. More will be needed for victims of Hurricane Irma, but at least the government will be funded to help. He even seemed to agree with Schumer that future arguments over extending the debt ceiling should be avoided by making extensions automatic and with Pelosi that DACA needed to be re-visited if Congress fails to act. Look for more deals with Chuck and Nancy in the future. Congress will now focus on the next Trump priority, to wit: tax reform. Is anyone under the delusion that the same folks with their internal divisions and squabbles, who so badly fumbled the ACA repeal and replace promise, can possibly put a tax reform package together that can pass without bipartisan support?

 

Whether you or I agree with all of them or not, Mr. Trump aims to keep the promises he made that got him elected. That includes the promise to end DACA, a carryover from the previous administration which circumvented the constitutional authority of Congress on immigration matters. A majority of Americans now seem sympathetic to the plight of these so-called “Dreamers”, brought to this country illegally as minors. But a Democrat-controlled Congress had years to enact legislation to legalize them and failed to do it so Barack Obama just overruled the peoples’ representatives by executive fiat.

 

It is the duty of the Executive Branch to enforce the law, not to write new law when Congress fails to do its bidding. President Trump has now given Congress six months to enact a law protecting dreamers, so Congress, if that is what your constituents want, just get off your behinds and do it. And liberals, put some of that outrage and blame where it belongs: on the Obama Administration for not getting it done right in the first place.

October 1, 2017