Since Nike Pulled US Flag Shoe, Arizona Might Pull Plug on New Nike Plant

 

It’s been a busy 24 hours for Nike. The day began with great news: They unveiled plans Monday for a multimillion-dollar manufacturing plant outside of Phoenix in the city of Goodyear, AZ. This would be Nike’s third manufacturing facility in the US.

The expected 500-plus jobs motivated city leaders to waive nearly $1 million in plan review and permit fees, and reimburse Nike another $1 million for the jobs created. “We are delighted to welcome Nike to Goodyear,” Councilwoman Wally Campbell said. “We look forward to a long-lasting relationship.”

That was before another story hit the athletic apparel giant. Later on Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Nike pulled a sneaker featuring a Betsy Ross American flag because company pitchman Colin Kaepernick decided it was offensive.

The Air Max 1 USA was designed to celebrate Independence Day and was to go on sale this week. But Nike suddenly asked for all the shoes to be returned without explanation.

“Nike has chosen not to release the Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July as it featured the old version of the American flag,” a Nike spokeswoman said. Kaepernick claimed to take offense because that flag was designed during the slavery era.

Arizona’s governor was not amused. Taking to Twitter in the wee hours of Tuesday, Republican Doug Ducey said the following:

Today was supposed to be a good day in Arizona, with the announcement of a major Nike investment in Goodyear, AZ.  And then this news broke yesterday afternoon.

Words cannot express my disappointment at this terrible decision. I am embarrassed for Nike.

Nike is an iconic American brand and American company. This country, our system of government and free enterprise have allowed them to prosper and flourish.

Instead of celebrating American history the week of our nation’s independence, Nike has apparently decided that Betsy Ross is unworthy, and has bowed to the current onslaught of political correctness and historical revisionism. It is a shameful retreat for the company.

American businesses should be proud of our country’s history, not abandoning it.

Nike has made its decision, and now we’re making ours. I’ve ordered the Arizona Commerce Authority to withdraw all financial incentive dollars under their discretion that the State was providing for the company to locate here.

Arizona’s economy is doing just fine without Nike. We don’t need to suck up to companies that consciously denigrate our nation’s history.

And finally, it shouldn’t take a controversy over a shoe for our kids to know who Betsy Ross is. A founding mother. Her story should be taught in all American schools. In the meantime, it’s worth googling her.

Nike still hasn’t decided on a facility in Goodyear. “The company is in the final stages of a real estate transaction,” city spokeswoman Tammy Vo said. “So nothing final yet on a location.”

Now Nike and Arizona have to decide if it’s a partnership worth having.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 69 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark, I don’t doubt you about Castro and Che, I just don’t know. Though if all that they did was jailing, what is the big deal? We were doing the same thing in the 1950s and 1960s. I’d prefer a more libertarian approach, but I actually think that I might prefer the old rule of criminalization to the current rule of philosodomic celebration and persecution of anyone who disagrees.

     

    It is difficult to square libertarianism with wanting to incarcerate adults for consensual behavior because Pride Month went on a bit too long. I don’t like the idea of societally enforced approval, but not because I have a problem with teh gays; I just don’t like being told what I’m supposed to endorse, and I’d feel the same way about Vegan Pride Month or Mandatory Bourbon Celebration Fortnight. Criminalization ruined lives.

    Sodomy laws applied to straights, too, because it’s totally government’s business if your personal sexuality activity has not been approved by the state legislature.

    Your first point is an excellent one, but not dispositive to me because I am not a Libertarian.

    Your final comment suggests that it is impermissible to regulate sexual behavior in any way.  I don’t think that this is working out well, which should have been obvious since the breakdown started in the 1960s.  The data on soaring illegitimacy, persistently high abortion rates, high divorce rates, and lower marriage rates are rather depressing.

    To be clear about my preferred policy, I’m not a fan of criminalization.  I only stated that I might prefer the “bad old days” to the dreadful present, on this particular issue. 

    • #61
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I still think that using the term “homophobia” is pushing the philosodomite agenda. It is strange to me that your very first objection to Castro and Che are that they are “homophobic.” They were murderous thugs committed to one of the most evil and destructive ideologies in history — and your criticism of them is that they didn’t like sodomy. Strange.

    Are you concerned here with crime or sin? For Christians in America I guess what used to be a crime and a sin is now merely a sin. Am I missing your point?

    I’m concerned with the proposition that opposition to, or criticism of, homosexual sodomy is morally impermissible.  The idea that it is morally odious to object to homosexuality is now ascendant on the Left, and has made serious inroads on the Right.  I think that this is precisely the purpose of the word “homophobic,” which is why I think we should not use it.

    I really dislike this tactic, used by my fellow conservatives, of accusing horrid, evil monsters like Castro, or Che, or the Ayatollahs in Iran, of being “homophobic.”  As I understand the word, I am “homophobic” myself, and plan to remain so.  It is a relatively important teaching of my faith.

    To me, it’s like criticizing the Ayatollahs for being “slut shamers.”  Yeah, they’re opposed to adultery or fornication.  They’re terrible guys, but I actually agree with them on these points as general moral propositions.  (To be clear, I agree with the Ayatollahs that these behaviors are bad, while disagreeing about the appropriate punishment).

    • #62
  3. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I still think that using the term “homophobia” is pushing the philosodomite agenda. It is strange to me that your very first objection to Castro and Che are that they are “homophobic.” They were murderous thugs committed to one of the most evil and destructive ideologies in history — and your criticism of them is that they didn’t like sodomy. Strange.

    Are you concerned here with crime or sin? For Christians in America I guess what used to be a crime and a sin is now merely a sin. Am I missing your point?

    I’m concerned with the proposition that opposition to, or criticism of, homosexual sodomy is morally impermissible. The idea that it is morally odious to object to homosexuality is now ascendant on the Left, and has made serious inroads on the Right. I think that this is precisely the purpose of the word “homophobic,” which is why I think we should not use it.

    I really dislike this tactic, used by my fellow conservatives, of accusing horrid, evil monsters like Castro, or Che, or the Ayatollahs in Iran, of being “homophobic.” As I understand the word, I am “homophobic” myself, and plan to remain so. It is a relatively important teaching of my faith.

    To me, it’s like criticizing the Ayatollahs for being “slut shamers.” Yeah, they’re opposed to adultery or fornication. They’re terrible guys, but I actually agree with them on these points as general moral propositions. (To be clear, I agree with the Ayatollahs that these behaviors are bad, while disagreeing about the appropriate punishment).

    That’s a very excellent explanation and if a ‘homophobe’ is someone who does not approve of homosexual acts then it is very difficult for a practicing Christian not to qualify.

    • #63
  4. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Cocaine Mitch has said that if Nike brings back the Betsy Ross shoes, he will buy the first pair.  Here is the citation from HuffPost which thinks that this is a bad thing for Cocaine Mitch to mock Nike.  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-nike-betsy-ross_n_5d1cb962e4b082e55373284f

    • #64
  5. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    This is preposterous that Nike is letting a meathead ex-football player tell them what shoes they can make.  It’s just as preposterous for a politician to tell them what shoes they must make.

    • #65
  6. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    This is preposterous that Nike is letting a meathead ex-football player tell them what shoes they can make. It’s just as preposterous for a politician to tell them what shoes they must make.

    Commerce is amoral. 

    • #66
  7. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    This is preposterous that Nike is letting a meathead ex-football player tell them what shoes they can make. It’s just as preposterous for a politician to tell them what shoes they must make.

    Commerce is amoral.

    I hope that is sarcasm.

    • #67
  8. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    This is preposterous that Nike is letting a meathead ex-football player tell them what shoes they can make. It’s just as preposterous for a politician to tell them what shoes they must make.

    Commerce is amoral.

    I hope that is sarcasm.

    Nope. Willing buyers and willing sellers.

    Nike chose to offend some people. I presume they did it because they calculated the benefits exceeded the cost. And yet, the same company chose to cancel a sneaker designed by a Hong Kong artist affiliated with opposition to Red Chinese expansion into HK governance. I presume they calculated the costs exceed the benefits.

    Certainly, there are notable exceptions. Chik Fil A closing on Sunday of note.

     

    • #68
  9. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    Steve C. (View Comment):
    Commerce is amoral.

    Nope. Willing buyers and willing sellers.

    Certainly, there are notable exceptions. Chik Fil A closing on Sunday of note.

    You make a statement as if it is true and then you prove it false. You have no way at all to know why the willing engage.

    • #69
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.