Trump, the NFL Anthem Kerfuffle, and Impeachment
In my recent one-off post on the kerfuffle, I wanted to provide a more comprehensive discussion vs. the fragmentary nature of social media posts. I came down on the point one is entitled to freely express one's thoughts and opinions, but it depends on the right time and place--and your voluntary contractual obligations. Football players know this: they can't get in the face of a referee who has thrown a flag on them and tell them what they think of the decision. They can't engage in unsportsmanlike behavior, including taunting the other team. They can't sell space on their uniforms or helmets to commercial sponsors. Most people know this from their work experience: I never wear a preferred political candidate's button on my lapel, I don't discuss religion or politics at work, I never discuss privileged information on my blogs or social media (in fact, I never even mention my social media accounts or blogs at work, and I don't friend or follow work colleagues). I do not post anything during work hours (my employer is not paying me to do that). As any reader of my blogs or social media accounts knows, my work has not preempted my ability to speak out on issues.When a football player is on the field, he is representing the team and the league; if and when he expresses himself, short of a disclaimer, his team and/or the league are responsible for what he says or does; there could be economic circumstances. including a fan backlash or lawsuits. The NFL knows in a major 2-party system country like ours, almost evenly split, it really doesn't want to get in the middle of petty political battles and lose up to 50% of its fan base.
For me and millions of fans like me, we don't tune in or buy tickets to see some rogue football players use their privileged status on the field engage in self-serving political messaging of any kind. It's not asking so much for players, like Americans everywhere, to act respectfully (i.e., standing, hand over heart) during the brief 3 minutes or so while the anthem is playing, to put the interests of the game and their job over the freeloader exploitation of coverage to propagate their idiosyncratic political views.
What then to make of Texas Congressman Al Green's quixotic attempt to impeach Trump (who, Green notes, called football player protesters "sons of bitches"? Well, surprisingly I do think Green has a point (although Trump's bluntness or use of profanity really doesn't bother me; this is part of his political persona. He kicked off his Presidential campaign with disparaging remarks about Mexicans and later his political opponents. Personally, I don't like it; I think his crude behavior makes for a poor role model, but the American people elected him, knowing the baggage of his personality).
As I mentioned in my earlier essay, I have issues with how Trump talks with respect to liberty issues. He has threatened to go after how companies make business decisions, like Ford, Carrier and Nabisco, which he considers unpatriotic for shifting production (say, to Mexico). There are serious issues with these threats, over and beyond economic illiteracy, the law of comparative advantage, etc.: we are talking about the rule of law, bill of attainder, breaching the separation of powers, etc. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if he would threaten some sort of government action against the NFL or its teams (even, say, a cutoff of military recruitment ads) if there is no crackdown on NFL player misconduct during the national anthem.
I do not think Trump should have threatened the players themselves, who see it as an infringement on free expression. It would be different if he had criticized the league or teams for lax enforcement of the league's code of conduct during the national anthem. Or maybe if he had suggested that Trumpkins boycott the NFL.
But when Trump goes after individuals who are exercising a form of political dissent, he's on very shaky ground. He's attacking the right of dissent itself; this is profoundly anti-American and anti-constitutional. He swore an oath to protect individual liberties, even when he profoundly disagrees with their thoughts or behaviors.
I think Trump is coming very close to crossing the line of an abuse of power warranting impeachment. It really depends on the nature or extent of his activities. I don't think it's a proper function of the government to monitor or enforce participation in nationalist rituals, like the anthem or the pledge of allegiance. I think it's more of a function of the private sector: fans can use their economic power as consumers to register their disgust with the NFL and team owners. The NFL may well consider whether the anthem should be played before games.
I think under current circumstances the NFL should consider coming up with some accommodation, e.g., athletes unwilling to participate during the anthem should remain in the locker room for the duration of the anthem.
WWE Storylines
Well, I didn't watch my first PPV since dropping my subscription. I thought they did a great buildup to the Lesnar-Strowman confrontation. I didn't think they would put the belt on Strowman, who was like the anti-Lesnar--even bigger, stronger, more destructive. In a certain sense, I worried that WWE might pull another John Cena move--where they signed the former UFC champion to a lucrative contract, just to have him job to Cena. It made Lesnar look weak and devalued his contract. Although Strowman is perhaps one of the most athletic big men they have signed, it's very difficult to see how they could book serious challengers to an even bigger Monster. They might have had to book a gimmick to get the belt off him, like a Fatal 4-Way where the champion doesn't have to be pinned to lose the championship.I'm not a fan of either Cena or Reigns, but I am particularly annoyed by how many times WWE management has been intent on shoving Reigns down fans' throats. He's now gotten even two bigger rubs this year: being only the second wrestler to beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania and in this last PPV defeating the perennial champion Cena, surviving multiple Cena finisher moves. This is a strong indication that Cena is probably nearing the end of his career, with few if any championship reigns, putting the rub on up and rising stars (like Reigns), more feature storylines. I thought he was an obvious challenger to WWE champ Jinder Mahal with his anti-American promos (perhaps they wanted Mahal to have a more credible title reign). The problem with Cena is that he has never been a heel. It might be interesting to see him go rogue for a record-making final championship reign.
I'm still mystified by Jinder Mahal. WWE are now featuring a rematch of Mahal vs. Nakamura. Mahal's politically correct anti-American promos aren't really drawing much heat, and the WWE quickly distanced itself from Mahal's anti-Japanese rant at Nakamura. To date, I haven't been impressed with how they've built up Nakamura on Smackdown.
Roode's "Glorious" gimmick is intriguing, an interesting twist in a modern-day Flair-like character. I'm still not buying Alexa Bliss as the woman's champion.
Ironically, Kevin Owens is getting the best exposure with his main event feud with Shane McMahon. I'm not crazy about the McMahon storylines, but I did not anticipate Owens beating up 72-year-old Vince with a head butt, leap flog and super kick. I think the Shane conflict is really a setup for a bigger battle with Triple H. There was a noted clip of Raw General Manager Stephanie McMahon briefly confronting Owens after his attack of Vince on Smackdown. Triple H notoriously turned on Seth Rollins and all but put the championship on Owens. I can just see the promos now: Triple H saying he made Owens champion, but he will now take Owens out.
