Camera One: “When you burn the American Flag, you’re not making a statement — you’re inciting chaos. It’s not ‘free speech,’ it’s a provocation. One year in jail, NO exceptions.” That’s US president Donald Trump, talking to reporters about his executive order on flag-burning.

Camera Two: “In cases where the Department of Justice or another executive department or agency (agency) determines that an instance of American Flag desecration may violate an applicable State or local law, such as open burning restrictions, disorderly conduct laws, or destruction of property laws, the agency shall refer the matter to the appropriate State or local authority for potential action.” That’s from the actual executive order.

In other words, Trump isn’t REALLY claiming the ability to unilaterally, and formally, repeal the First Amendment, as he sometimes does.

He’s just throwing a public “find something else to charge them with!” tantrum, presumably by way of distracting attention from the ongoing inquiries into his long, close personal association with the late sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, his embarrassment at still failing to deliver on his “first day in office” promise of ending the war in Ukraine, the bad economic news associated with his idiotic trade and tariff policies, etc.

Dog bites man story? Well, yeah.

But free speech is always worth defending, even when an attack on it is indirect and pretextual.

Yes, free speech, or at least “expressive conduct.”  It’s not just me saying that, it’s the US Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989):

“Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment.”

Property rights are also worth defending. If you burn someone else’s flag without permission, that’s theft and destruction of property. If you burn a flag you own, well, you own it and you’re entitled by right to do anything with it you darn well please, so long as you don’t damage other people or other people’s property.

And by “damage other people,” I don’t mean “hurt someone’s feelings.”

According to Trump, “[o]ur great American Flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America, and of American freedom.”

Whether something is “sacred” is a matter of opinion. Whether you “cherish” the flag, or don’t, is entirely up to you to decide.

As for Trump, he routinely — if metaphorically — defecates on everything he claims the flag stands for, then wipes his posterior with it … while also wrapping himself in it. Sorry not sorry if you have trouble un-seeing THAT image. I hope it lives rent-free in your brain for years.

I’m not generally inclined toward flag-burning, if for no other reason than that I have relatives who “cherished” it, considered it “sacred,” and had it draped over their coffins,  folded, and presented to their loved ones when they died.

But Trump’s latest attempt to use the flag as, essentially, kitty litter to cover up his messes, tempts me to a “smoke’em if you got’em” attitude.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

I’m not going to lie: I don’t particularly like Cracker Barrel’s new branding. The popular restaurant chain recently replaced its iconic logo, featuring said barrel and the founder’s “Uncle Herschel” sitting in a rocking chair, with a plainer version, a stylized “barrel on its side” shape with the chain’s name on it.

As one meme going around puts it, they removed the cracker AND the barrel. Meh.

But is the new logo “woke,” as “conservative” “influencer” Robby Starbuck and others would have us believe?  Does it reveal a corporate conspiracy to brainwash the public in, perish the thought, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” doctrine, by imposing brutalist signage on  us or something of the sort?

In a word, no. The rebranding may be a poor marketing decision, but it’s exactly what it looks like: An ailing company trying to turn things around.

COVID-19 hit most restaurants pretty hard, but Cracker Barrel caters to an older, presumably more cautious, customer base that was already shrinking. Last year, CEO Julie Masino noted that 16% of customers hadn’t returned since the pandemic hit.

Getting targeted by moral panic scammers like Starbuck doesn’t help, of course, and this isn’t the first time.

Almost exactly three years ago, Starbuck was one voice in the off-pitch chorus screeching “WOKE!” when Cracker Barrel added a new item — the Impossible [TM] Sausage, a non-meat take on the classic breakfast food — to its menu.

Yes, really.

They lost their minds because a popular, but flagging in popularity, restaurant chain tried to make its menu more attractive to a growing demographic: Those who choose to eat less, or even no, meat for any number of reasons.

Cracker Barrel didn’t remove ham or country fried steak from its menu. It didn’t require its servers to wear tie-dyes, get their noses pierced, and lecture customers on checking their privilege.  It just added a menu option. Don’t want the Impossible [TM] Sausage? Don’t order it. “Problem” solved!

I wouldn’t go so far as to blame Starbuck and his crack-brained co-complainers for Cracker Barrel’s business problems. They’re real problems, with real underlying causes. Markets change. Demographics shift. Businesses fail. That’s just life.

But the “extremely online right” and its social media enabled attacks, which often go way beyond idiotic, probably can’t help.

Or maybe, just maybe, they can.

I only eat at Cracker Barrel every couple of years. Part of that is “out of sight, out of mind.”

When I think about Cracker Barrel, I think good things about Cracker Barrel.

And Robby Starbuck’s antics have me thinking about Cracker Barrel.

Suddenly, I’m craving Grandpa’s Country Fried Breakfast, and perhaps some classic candy bars to take home from their “country store.” Maybe I’ll see you there!

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On May 27, US  Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the federal government no longer recommends COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children.

On May 30, the US Centers for Disease Control contradicted Kennedy, instead simply recommending that parents of children between the ages of six months and 17 years “discuss the benefits of vaccination with a healthcare provider.”

On August 20, the American Academy of Pediatrics took yet a third position: That “all young children” between the ages of six months and 23 months, possibly excluding “older children in certain risk groups,” should receive the vaccines.

One of these positions — the CDC’s — is consistent with both good medical practice and parental rights/responsibilities.

The other two — Kennedy’s and the AAP’s — try to substitute the one-size-fits-all judgment of  a few supposed “experts” for the case-by-case judgments of millions of parents and doctors.

It’s not very often that you’ll see a good word from me where CDC is concerned. Its operations and recommendations often seem geared more toward affirming establishment policy positions than protecting Americans’ health. It’s nice to see the correct take coming from that corner.

Why should decisions on childhood vaccination be made by parents with the advice of their family doctors?

Put simply, vaccination entails both benefits and risks.

I’m not referring to “fringe” theories about the dangers of mRNA “clot shots,” or to the notion that preservatives in some vaccines may be linked to autism,  although those certainly are, and should remain, up for discussion.

It’s an indisputable fact that some vaccines, including but not limited to COVID-19 vaccines produce allergic reactions in some patients. Those reactions can be fatal.

Vaccines, including but not limited to COVID-19 vaccines, have also been linked to Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a rare autoimmune disorder. Whether that linkage is directly causal or whether a vaccine is just the tipping point that “activates” GBS seems unclear, but it’s a risk either way.

Individual doctors are better positioned than “experts” a thousand miles away to evaluate their patients, their patients’ needs, and their patients’ risk levels, and offer their best advice on whether to undergo any medical procedure.

And individual patients — or, in the case of children, their parents/guardians — are the ones entitled by right to weigh the benefits and risks, seek advice or not, and make the decisions.

When a vaccine is administered, it’s injected into the patient’s body, not RFK’s body or the AAP’s body.

Does the phrase “my body, my choice” ring any bells?

It’s not just about vaccines. It’s about the whole range of health issues.

Oddly, many of those inveighing against vaccine choice take the correct position on treatment for gender dysphoria in minors — that parents and doctors should be free to do their best to help children.

Also oddly, many of those rightly invoking “parental rights” on childhood vaccine decisions claim that politicians, rather than parents and doctors, are entitled to decide for everyone on child gender dysphoria treatment.

Individual/parental choice is always preferable to letting politicians and bureaucrats choose for everyone.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY