Op-ed: NFL and DPRK

  • By Bob Franken
  • Monday, May 28, 2018 10:26am
  • Opinion

Why are the NFL and North Korea similar? You guessed it: Neither will tolerate not standing for their national anthems. I assume Kim Jong Un won’t accept it because he eliminates any dissenters. While the pro football owners aren’t quite as bloodthirsty, they obviously are profit-thirsty and accordingly have voted that they, too, will punish players’ protests, in particular any refusal to rise for “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

In the NFL, those who take a knee for the national anthem instead will risk a fine. In the DPRK, anyone who doesn’t robotically comply with Kim’s every demand is executed, or at the very least imprisoned. So the enforced patriotism of pro football isn’t nearly as thuggish, particularly since the athletes can simply hide in the locker room while Francis Scott Key’s laborious song is performed. As long as they don’t offend anyone with their demonstrations against the nation’s racism and cops killing black Americans, they can take a knee or whatever it is they do in the locker room. Just not visibly. Ratings are way more important than free expression.

The comparison, some will argue, is unfair. We are nowhere near as regimented as the citizens of North Korea. But, it’s a matter of degree. Autocracy breeds dictatorship, and we certainly are heading in the wrong direction.

Millions of people worry that the elected leader of the United States is taking us that way. By constantly railing against the institutions that stand between him and absolute rule, Donald Trump is pushing us all down a slippery slope. The media, the courts and the other protectors built into the Constitution are obstacles to whatever whim he’s having. His Twitter protestations would be amusing, except that they’re taken seriously by his millions of followers.

Still, as much as he enjoys ravaging just about everyone in his tweets, he does not take kindly when the invective is incoming.

For a number of reasons, it should be no surprise then that he’s bailing on his much-anticipated face-to-face meeting with Kim next month in Singapore. Reason No. 1 could be that Trump is wimping out after feeling the pressure of living up to the hype. He’s not a detail man, to put it mildly, but even he might be aware that if he and Kim didn’t tangibly pull us back from the nuclear precipice, he’d be discredited as just a huckster. So he seized upon the belligerence spewing out of Pyongyang from a high-level official who dismissed Vice President Mike Pence as a “political dummy,” which is only partially true — politically, he’s crafty, but let’s not digress.

When Kim’s guy also pointed out that it’s up to the United States to “meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at a nuclear-to-nuclear showdown,” that was all the excuse Donald Trump needed. So the letter went out:

“Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting.”

Remember, this is President Trump talking about “tremendous anger and open hostility” being “inappropriate.” Now, Trump and Kim have returned to making nice for the moment, even suggesting that a meeting might be desirable. Someplace. Sometime.

One could easily surmise that all the harsh elbowing is the way that these guys signal that they really do want to get together — the geopolitical version of pre-date foreplay. That would explain why, with all the invective, the North Koreans put on a show of destroying their mountain nuclear testing site, and all the conciliatory comments on both sides. But let’s not make any plans for the Trumpster’s Nobel Peace Prize quite yet.

We have much to offer North Korea, though, not only a financial rescue and assurances of regime protection, but also a tradition of freedom. That includes freedom of expression, which is a delicate right that can be shattered all too easily. That’s what makes the stifling action of the NFL owners a step in the wrong direction.

More in Opinion

William Marley’s proposal for a bayfront park on the Sterling Highway. (Illustration provided)
Point of View: Some alternatives for a community center

Entering the City of Homer from Bluff Point has to be one of the most pristine view experiences of geography and nature, ever.

Alan Parks is a Homer resident and commercial fisher. (Courtesy photo)
Voices of the Peninsula: HB 52 would hurt commercial fishing and community

Upper Cook Inlet fishing families have been hit hard by ongoing politics

WH
Opinion: The buck stops at the top

Shared mistakes of Dunleavy and Biden.

A sign welcomes people to Kenai United Methodist Church on Monday, Sept. 6, 2021 in Kenai, Alaska. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
It’s time for a federal law against LGBTQ discrimination

When my wife and I decided to move to Alaska, we wondered if we would be welcome in our new neighborhood.

Terri Spigelmyer. (Photo provided)
Pay It Forward: Instilling volunteerism in the next generation

We hope to have instilled in our children empathy, cultural awareness, long-term planning and the selflessness of helping others

Hal Shepherd in an undated photo taken near Homer, Alaska. (Photo courtesy of Hal Shepherd.)
Point of View: Election integrity or right-wing power grab?

Dr. King would be appalled at what is happening today

Nancy HIllstrand. (Photo provided)
Point of View: Trail Lakes is the sockeye salmon hero, not Tutka Bay

Tutka hatchery produces a pink salmon monoculture desecrating Kachemak Bay State Park and Critical Habitat Area as a feed lot

A map of Kachemak Bay State Park shows proposed land additions A, B and C in House Bill 52 and the Tutka Bay Lagoon Hatchery. (Map courtesy of Alaska State Parks)
Opinion: Rep. Vance’s bill is anti-fishermen

House Bill 52 burdens 98.5% of Cook Inlet fishermen.

A sign designates a vote center during the recent municipal election. The center offered a spot for voters to drop off ballots or fill a ballot out in person. (Ben Hohenstatt / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: The failure of mail-in voting

The argument that mail-in balloting increases voter participation never impressed me

Most Read