This Podcast episode digs into the National Anthem controversy by getting past the protest and getting to the point. I assure you it is all spoken in love, but it is not necessarily the easiest to ingest. No offense was intended if any is felt:

Over the last couple weeks, there has been a growing storyline surrounding young Colin Kaepernick.

The spectrum of reactions ranges from essentially comparing the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner to a heritage of the same kind of ideas that brought down the Stars and Bars recently, to rhetoric of a rich spoiled athlete waiting to complain about “supposed” oppression until after poor play and a big contract. How convenient?”

Everyone has an opinion on what he did, how he did it, and why he shouldn’t have. Yet, it seems as though each of these “conversations” ends the same way: we sit and analyze each other’s opinions and decide to point back to the man to ask:

“Why is he being so divisive?”

I suppose my question is:

Are we sure it’s Kaepernick that’s being divisive?

Why is shining a light on something negative about our country, perceived as more divisive than that negative thing?

Is it really that we can’t look past his act of omission to address his motive, or is it that we don’t want to address the motives and have found a convenient loop hole?

How can it be seen as the "right message, wrong way wrong time" when right now everyone is listening?

-you are not listening to this

r5jd65ih