This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astronauts

An Astronaut Takes A Knee

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 24, 2017
Filed under

Keith’s note: Leland posted this letter using his real name. I edit and comment on this site using my real name. Yet some of you are sniping at Leland and you do so while hiding behind fake names.

Full Letter
“I served my country not in the military but as 1 of 362 American Astronauts that have explored the universe to help advance our civilization. Not just Americans but all humans. I also was briefly in the NFL and stood for the National Anthem with my hand over my heart. What makes us great is our differences and respecting that we are all created equally even if not always treated that way. Looking back at our planet from space really helps one get a bigger perspective on how petty and divisive we can be. Donald Trump maybe you should ask your good friend Mr. Putin to give you a ride on a Soyuz rocket to our International Space Station and see what it’s like to work together with people we used to fight against, where your life depends on it. See the world and get a greater sense of what it means to be part of the human race, we call it the Orbital Perspective.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

28 responses to “An Astronaut Takes A Knee”

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, part of the First Amendment, but irrelevant in this case as Leland Marvin is now a private citizen having retired as Associate Administrator for Education in 2014.

      But active duty astronauts would be covered by Civil Service Rules, a different legal environment than the case you referenced that covers students in K-12 schools. They would be covered by the Civil Service Act and especially the Hatch Act on political activities.

      • MichiCanuck says:
        0
        0

        And the NFL and NASCAR are not the government. If they have a code of conduct that must be followed to keep employment, well they have that right. I don’t think this astronaut has a clue as to what’s involved. Yes football players have the right to kneel. But clubs have the right to bench them. And fans have the right to not watch the games and sponsors have the right to bail. Now if public figures want to make a statement and piss off a sizable proportion of their customers, good luck. They may not think they are not insulting fans, but that’s not how most of the fans see it.

        • MarcNBarrett says:
          0
          0

          It is actually AGAINST THE LAW in some cases for government officials to advocate for the firing of employees of private companies.

          http://www.newsweek.com/did

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, they are private entities and although some states have laws protecting political speech by employees in the private sector there is no federal protection.

          Bottomline, if you drive to work with a political sticker on your car your employer objects to you may be fired.

          http://www.npr.org/template

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            Go check the law. It is illegal for Trump to advocate the dismissal of someone employed in the private sector – full stop.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Actually I have, and most folks skip this key element of it.

            18 USC 227 (a) 1. takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or 18 USC 227 (a) 2. influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

            http://uscode.house.gov/vie

            Basically what this says is that the government may not require an employee to be fired for political reasons as a condition to receiving or continuing to receive a government contract, funding, etc. That is why it is under the section of the USC that deals with bribery, graft and conflicts of interest.

            IF the NFL or ESPN were government contractors and President Trump threaten to pull those contracts then it would be a violation. But he has no such financial influence to use, so legally it is just his opinion.

          • sunman42 says:
            0
            0

            I don’t even play a lawyer on TV, but since the President has to sign any law enacted by Congress, and inherits what his or her predecessors signed, there is some level of connection between the President and the waiver of antitrust protections that the NFL enjoys.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You are referring to the law President Johnson signed the law that was passed by Congress in 1966 allowing the AFL and NFL to merge. Only Congress would have the power to repeal that law. President Trump would have to threaten to sign it IF Congress passed it for it to come even close to meeting the standard. Just calling for Congress to make such a change to the law would not be adequate as only Congress has the power to do so.

        • David Fowler says:
          0
          0

          And I think you’re wrong. You assume fans are all a bunch of dumb yahoos.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Hatch Act does not cover standing/not standing for the pledge of allegiance since the pledge is not embedded in law in any way nor is it defined as partisan political activity.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Keith, the latter is they key point. If the action is seen as politically motivated it may be covered. If it is not seen as political then it would not be.

      • sunman42 says:
        0
        0

        The Hatch Act covers partisan political activities. It does not affect exercise of First Amendment rights on one’s own time.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Actually it even allows partisan politics on ones own time and not using you position in government.

          But if it was on your work time one of the key issues would be if it is a statement against national policy, which is protected, or specifically against a Republican President, which is partisan.

          The original protests last year were against national policy, or more specifically against police apparently targeting blacks. It would be exempt since it’s focus was on an issue of civil rights.

          But the current round appear to be targeting President Trump which could move it into the relearn of partisan politics if done on duty.

  1. DJE51 says:
    0
    0

    “we call it the Orbital Perspective.” That is a great quote!

  2. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    Mr. Melvin, what the heck does this have to do with Donald Trump?? You should be standing with your hand on your heart as a sign of respect for the Country known as the United States of America. You are not standing for Trump, you are not standing for Obama, you are not standing for George Washington. You are standing as public display of honor for the flag of your Country and to show your solidarity to the Nation that you and your fathers lived, loved, lost, struggled, worked, strived, hoped, dreamed…and many fought, bled, and died for. It includes all the good and bad, all the joys and sorrows, all the remarkable achievements and all the disappointing failures. It is not about any one man, nor any one party, nor any one ideology, and certainly not about the elevation of Self over God, family and country.

    • Zathras1 says:
      0
      0

      “What does this have to do with Donald Trump?” Trump is the person who said that these football players should be fired for lawfully exercising their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
      Mr. Melvin has a problem with that, as do I. Mr. Melvin is far more eloquent in explaining and expressing the problem.

  3. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    Which is, in fact, one of the reasons why voting is anonymous (or, at least, is supposed to be.) Your employer can’t tell how you voted, and therefore can’t hold it against you. If memory serves, that dates from efforts to suppress trade unions, in the late 1800s.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Voting is not the same thing as posting on a blog. What is your name, by the way and why do you not use it? Just wondering.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        If “fcrary” is who I think he is, he’s using the same account name (minus the domain name) that he used to use back in the late 1990s on the sci.space Usenet Newsgroups. So, he’s not at all anonymous for those of us who used to read those newsgroups.

        I, on the other hand, am a tad bit more anonymous, but sci.space Usenet Newsgroups readers will no doubt connect the dots.

        Jeff

        The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer, family, friends, and etc. 😉

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Pretty simple to deduce the identity of Dr. Crary. He’s posted about Cassini dozens of times.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, since under the federal employment at will doctrine employers do have the right to fire someone for how they voted. Although a number of states have laws that protect the individual there has never been a federal law enacted that does so. Hence the move to secret ballots in the late 1800’s.

  4. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    One reason for people not using their real names is the common practice of activists on the internet trying to ruin those they don’t agree with.

  5. kcowing says:
    0
    0

    He is a former astronaut who served our country by risking his life to fly into space. The fact that he is retired is irrelevant.

  6. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    This was the best I could do to get my real name for Discus to accept. I hope it is OK . I believe in the Bill of Rights but Trump does not.

  7. Shaw_Bob says:
    0
    0

    Where I live, flag-wavers and the like are the crazies. I think I prefer to live here rather than in the USA. And, before anyone asks, *yes*, that is my photo. Well, I took it!

  8. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    First, for the record, I have no issue with the protests, it comes under the individual freedoms folks have in America. I also think President Trump should be silent on it.

    But as someone who teaches HR on a regular basis, and HR these days is mostly about the many federal and state laws that govern it, I am simply following up on the post by Vladislaw governing the legal issues involved.

    Also in terms of the NFL there is another dimension, a back story, to this issue most folks are not aware of that puts it in a very different light.

    And note, these news stories are Pre-Trump and the source is NBC

    https://www.nbcnews.com/new

    NFL Agrees to Reimburse U.S. Taxpayers $720K for ‘Paid Patriotism’
    by Corky Siemaszko

    May 19 2016, 5:05 pm ET

    “The NFL is reimbursing U.S. taxpayers more than $720,000 in so-called “paid patriotism” money that the teams took from the military to allow things like color guard displays and video tributes at pro football
    games.”

    “Flake and McCain, both Republicans, revealed in November that
    the Pentagon had “inappropriately” paid up to $6.8 million to both
    professional and college sports teams to allow rah-rah patriotic
    displays and performance at games.”

    It was only after the government started paying the NFL to show patriotism that teams started requiring players to be on the field for the National Anthem as part of the “show” instead of being allowed to stay in the club house if they wish. To me this pay for patriotism is the real scandal…

    An earlier story…

    https://www.nbcnews.com/new

    ‘Paid Patriotism’: Senators Accuse Military of Wasteful Sports Tributes
    by Frank Thorp V and Jon Schuppe

    Nov 4 2015, 6:20 pm ET

    “Americans deserve the ability to assume that tributes for our men and women in military uniform are genuine displays of national pride, which many are, rather than taxpayer-funded DOD marketing gimmicks,” Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, the report’s co-authors, wrote.”

    “The report summarizes the conclusions of an investigation McCain and Flake began last spring, when they said they discovered that weekly “hometown hero” tributes hosted by the New York Jets and New England Patriots were paid for by taxpayer money. They said they asked the Pentagon for documentation, and found $53 million in spending on marketing and advertising contracts with sports teams between 2012 and 2015, $10 million of which went to clubs in the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and Major League Soccer. “

    And, for the record, I would be very very surprised if President Obama was aware of this as even Congress was unaware until this report was done. Mostly likely it was just a lower level DOD official who had the idea this would be “good” for recruitment.

  9. Dr. Brian Chip Birge says:
    0
    0

    That’s awesome, “orbital perspective”. I dream of the deep space perspective or at least the cis-lunar one. Would be great if Leland’s letter went national but likely it will just bounce around our own particular echo chamber of space enthusiasts. I also shudder to think that Trump might actually take him up on his suggestion to book a ride to the ISS.