November 9-14, 2015
Nov 09 01:23 Jeff Fisher, Gregg Williams, dirty coaches? Nov 10 00:56 Southwest Minnesota State's censorship Nov 10 01:50 Jeff Fisher gives Zimmer 'advice' Nov 11 01:39 Tonight's worst moments Nov 12 15:31 Climate change activists unhinged Nov 13 07:32 Uppity Peasant Brigade vs. Sarah Starling Nov 14 13:29 Bakk's palace Nov 14 18:54 Trump caught in his deception
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Jeff Fisher, Gregg Williams, dirty coaches?
During the Vikings-Rams game Sunday at TCF Bank Stadium on the U of M campus, Rams defensive back Lamarcus Joyner hit Vikings quarterback Teddy Bridgewater with a forearm shiver to Bridgewater's head:
The NFL implemented a new rule several years ago in their attempt to protect quarterbacks. If a quarterback slides at the end of a run, the defensive player doesn't have to touch him because the slide is considered proof that he's giving up on the play in exchange for his safety. Clearly, that's what Bridgewater did early in the fourth quarter. Joyner slid, too, but with his forearm out. After the game, Joyner said that he wasn't trying to hurt Bridgewater.
I don't totally believe that but I won't accuse him of being a dirty player because, as far as I know, he doesn't have a reputation of being a dirty player. I won't extend that same benefit of the doubt to St. Louis Head Coach Jeff Fisher or St. Louis Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams because they both have reputations of being dirty coaches.
During the pregame show on NBC's Sunday Night game of the week, commentator Rodney Harrison, in talking about the Bridgewater-Joyner play, said that he remembered a wide receiver on Fisher's team going low and hitting Harrison's knee. As a result of the play, Harrison wound up with a torn ACL, ending his season. Harrison said he looked up in pain to see "Jeff Fisher smiling" while Harrison was in pain.
That's before talking about Gregg 'Bountygate' Williams. Ben Goessling, one of ESPN's staff writers and former Vikings beat writer for the St. Paul Pioneer Press, wrote briefly about Williams in his article :
Rams defensive coordinator Gregg Williams has a history with the Vikings; he was the New Orleans Saints' defensive coordinator in 2010, when the Saints' bounty system targeting quarterback Brett Favre became national news after New Orleans beat the Vikings in the NFC Championship Game.
There's no justification for what Joyner did. A defensive player that slides with his forearm out isn't playing within the rules. If the quarterback is sliding, then the official's whistle blows and the play is over. Period.
If Williams and Fisher aren't teaching their defensive players this basic rule, then they're being derelict in their responsibilities to play within the rules. If the NFL doesn't discipline Fisher and Williams, they're essentially telling them that not teaching players to play within the rules is optional. The NFL has tried hard over the last 18 months to clean the game up. If it doesn't discipline these coaches, and to a lesser extent, Joyner, they will have shown that talk of player safety is just talk.
UPDATE: I DVR all Vikings games so I can study the players' performances. I just watched the hit on Teddy Bridgewater that gave him his concussion. I have a different perspective on the play than I had yesterday. Thanks to the marks left in the Bank's field turf, it's clear that Bridgewater started his slide before the 25 yard line. Joyner didn't hit Bridgewater until Bridgewater's head was across the 25 yard line. Further, it's clear that Joyner didn't leave his feet until after Bridgewater had crossed the 25 yard line.
Upon further review, there's no question in my mind. Joyner's hit was intentional. The NFL should fine and/or suspend him. The NFL should investigate the Rams to see whether Williams has restarted the BountyGate program in St. Louis.
Posted Monday, November 9, 2015 3:15 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Steckling at 09-Nov-15 09:42 PM
Thanks for the replay analysis. I'm with you on the hit was intentional. A severe penalty is
called for.
Southwest Minnesota State's censorship
Southwest Minnesota State University, aka SMSU, has been 'recognized' as being unique, though that doesn't mean it's a positive thing. SMSU has 'won' the honor of being FIRE's Speech Code of the Month . According to FIRE's Samantha Harris, SMSU's Prohibited Code of Conduct for students bans 'cultural intolerance,' which is defined as any "verbal or physical contact directed at an individual or group such as racial slurs, jokes, or other behaviors that demean or belittle a person's race, color, gender preference, national origin, culture, history or disability, is prohibited."
Ms. Harris is right in saying that if "students' free speech rights exist only at the mercy of the most sensitive members of the university community, then meaningful debate becomes impossible." Ms. Harris adds that under "SMSU's policy, any speech or expression that another student subjectively finds 'demeaning' or 'belittling' is subject to punishment. And on today's college campus, where students increasingly demand the right to emotional comfort , that often includes a tremendous amount of speech, including the expression of unpopular views on political and social issues."
The question frequently comes back to who the final determiner is of what's acceptable or what's offensive. Frankly, I don't trust anyone to be the determiner of those sorts of things.
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:56 AM
No comments.
Jeff Fisher gives Zimmer 'advice'
After Lamarcus Joyner's cheap shot against Teddy Bridgewater in Sunday's game, Jeff Fisher isn't in a position to give anyone advice. Still, that's what he did Monday in telling Vikings Head Coach Mike Zimmer to control his emotions immediately after a game, adding that Zimmer should "go back and look at the tape before you jump to conclusions."
I've watched the replay a dozen times. There's no question that Teddy Bridgewater started his slide at the Vikings 23-yard line. Similarly, there's no question that Joyner was between the 27- and 28-yard line when Bridgewater started his slide. Further, there's conclusive visual proof that Joyner didn't do anything to avoid sliding into Bridgewater with his forearm out. Joyner's forearm hit Bridgewater in the helmet.
The NFL rulebook states quite clearly that "a defender must pull up when a runner starts a feet-first slide. This doesn't mean that all contact by a defender is illegal. If a defender has already committed himself, and the contact is unavoidable, it isn't a foul unless the defender commits some other act, such as helmet-to-helmet contact or by driving his forearm or his shoulder in the head or neck area of the runner."
There's indisputable visual proof that Joyner hit Bridgewater's head with his forearm extended. Notice that this rule isn't just for quarterbacks. The rule speaks of hitting "the head or neck area of the runner." Some of the apologists on ESPN and the NFL Network said that the play was a bang-bang play, meaning Joyner didn't have the time to avoid the contact. That's BS. Regardless, Joyner certainly had sufficient time to not slide. Further, Joyner had plenty of time to not lead with his forearm extended.
I know this, not because I played in the NFL but, because another Rams defender was caught in a similar situation earlier in the game. This defender didn't have any problem avoiding planting his forearm into the player's facemask.
Fisher's teams have had a well-documented history of hitting players after the whistle has blown. Rather than offering Coach Zimmer advice, I'd argue that Fisher should spend a ton of time teaching his players how to be professionals.
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2015 1:50 AM
No comments.
Tonight's worst moments
One of the worst moments from the FBN-Wall St. Journal GOP Debate came when Carly Fiorina interrupted Rand Paul to highlight President Reagan's walking away from negotiations in Reykjavik "when it was time to quit talking." Listen to the reaction to Mr. Trump:
That's a two-fer. First, Carly highlighted her substantive differences with Sen. Paul by noting that continuous chatting isn't always wise. That's what this administration, especially Hillary and John Kerry, have done. Their history has been a disaster. Second, Trump looked sexist because he interrupted Mrs. Fiorina but he didn't interrupt Gov. Kasich or the other men when they tried jumping into the debate. I don't think Trump is sexist but it's obvious that that's how it played in the Theater.
Saying that Frank Luntz's focus group in New Hampshire had a negative reaction to John Kasich's answer on the bank bailout is understatement:
To be fair, the people in the Theater didn't have a positive reaction to Gov. Kasich's answer, either.
For all intents and purposes, Kasich's campaign and Jeb's campaigns are 'dead-men-walking' campaigns. While people haven't made their final decision, they've made up their mind in terms of rejecting Gov. Kasich and Gov. Bush.
Posted Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:39 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 11-Nov-15 12:44 PM
I watched and live chat'd on Ricochet.com. Consensus was no clear winner but certainly two losers, the surprisingly boorish Kasich and Bush the zombie. Rand Paul has his narrow, rapid band that neither gains or loses members. Good show overall, both GOP and FBN.
Comment 2 by eric z at 17-Nov-15 07:04 AM
It is hard to see much worthwhile in either John Ellis Bush, or in Gov. Kasich. We can agree on that.
How either was ever elected a state governor is a mystery.
Climate change activists unhinged
It's telling that 27% of Democrats think that 'deniers' should be prosecuted. It's frightening, though, that New York State has taken it a step further by investigating Exxon Mobil for refusing to play ball with the popular scientific theory .
According to the NY Times, the "New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business. According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents."
This is a serious investigation only in the sense that state attorneys general have subpoena power and the resources to make life miserable for the companies they 'investigate'. Otherwise, this isn't a serious investigation. The accurate terminology for what the NY State Attorney General is doing is 'leading a fishing expedition'. Another term that might be used is that Gen. Schneiderman's hunting for someone's scalp, a trophy to brag about during his re-election campaign.
I seriously doubt that Schneiderman can prove anything about the science. If he can't prove that climate change exists to a judge, then he should lose the entire case because, according to the NY Times, the investigation intends to prove how much climate change "might hurt the oil business."
The fact that people think the government should prosecute 'climate change deniers' should be sufficient motivation to vote out Democrats in 2016 and beyond. These people are nuts and vindictive.
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:31 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Nov-15 06:56 AM
Big Tabacco said there was no connection between their commerce and cancer, that the science was unclear.
Big Oil makes no sense when renewable is an option.
Subpoena power can uncover the lies and cover-ups of corporate greed mongers. Sunshine and transparency are always best, but seldom voluntary. It was the subpoena/discovery powers in the Minnesota tabacco litigation that helped drive the truth to the surface.
Uppity Peasant Brigade vs. Sarah Starling
Since Sarah Starling has taken it upon herself to speak for ISD742 students in this LTE , I, as one of the leaders of the Uppity Peasant Brigade, will reply. First, Ms. Starling melodramatically said "about 8,000 of you went into our schools, many of you looked our children in the eyes, and told them they did not deserve a higher quality of education because you don't want your property taxes to increase."
My first question of Ms. Starling is simple but it's one she won't answer. How does she know that 8,460 of us uppity peasants went into 'their schools' and told their children that "they didn't deserve a higher quality of education" because we didn't want our property taxes increased? How does she know that we didn't vote no for other, more practical, reasons? As far as I know, Ms. Starling hasn't asked a legitimate portion of the people who voted no to understand why we voted the way we did.
It's apparent that she doesn't read LFR. It's apparent that she didn't notice that I was quoted by Kevin Allenspach in this St. Cloud Times article , either. That's where I said "We didn't have the opportunity of asking whether there is a cheaper way of doing these things. What's the enrollment model? Are we over-building or under-building?" said Gross, who is 60 years old and has lived in the same St. Cloud house since 1962. 'There were no town hall meetings asking for input from the citizenry. That's the opposite of representative democracy. But I'm not an expert. The district is having forums in these last few weeks, but that should've been done before they had a proposal together. At this point, the horse is out of the barn.'
After that first accusation against the Uppity Peasant Brigade, Ms. Starling makes these ill-informed and hyper-melodramatic accusations:
You voted against providing more secure entrances and updated technology. We have failed our children and our entire area's future. People refuse to live in the St. Cloud area because our schools are horrendous - yet we refuse to improve them. To the people who voted no, why don't you care about our community?
First, it's disappointing that Ms. Starling didn't know that technology is part of the operating levy.
Next, it's disheartening that Ms. Starling didn't affix blame on the School Board, led by Chairman Dennis Whipple, for attempting to keep this a low profile event. When the St. Cloud Times publishes an Our View editorial in mid-September asking where the school bonding campaign is, that's an indicator that the School Board wanted the bonding levy to pass but didn't think it could pass if the Uppity Peasants Brigade started asking the right questions. The simple truth is that 15,853 citizens voted, with 8,460 citizens voting no. The simple truth is that approximately 5,000-6,000 voters show up for most school board votes or special elections.
According to Chairman Whipple, citizens had surpassed that average by 11:00 am on election day. By objective-minded people's opinions, turnout was fantastic for a single-issue referendum. Ms. Starling apparently doesn't think that but that's the truth.
Finally, it's time that Ms. Starling understood that lots of citizens voted against the referendum because the School Board didn't even have the decency of telling the taxpayers what the new Tech High School would look like. They couldn't because, according to Barclay Carriar, 80% of the building wouldn't be designed until after the referendum vote. Asking people to vote for a $167,000,000 blank check without telling them what that money would pay for is indecent.
Posted Friday, November 13, 2015 7:32 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 13-Nov-15 05:24 PM
My magnanimous side interprets her rant as "where and how to we go forward from this point?" which is a fair question. But far more important is, "how did we get to this point?" Then ask: "who oversaw this decline?" Finally ask: "And now they should be trusted with $167 million to fix it?"
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 13-Nov-15 06:29 PM
This was telling:
People refuse to live in the St. Cloud area because our schools are horrendous - yet we refuse to improve them.
So a new building with many unanswered questions is the answer? How about fixing what's wrong inside the walls?
To the author who wrote this LTE. I'm sorry. I'm sorry you didn't do your homework before the Times published your article.
Bakk's palace
Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk isn't having fun, thanks in large part to Senate Republicans and Senate Minority Leader David Hann. Sen. Bakk is insisting that Republicans move into Bakk's Palace , the building Sen. Bakk shoved down taxpayers' throats in the 2013 Tax Bill in the dead of night the last weekend of session without going through the committee process. It didn't go through the committee process intentionally because Bakk didn't want it to be scrutinized by anyone.
Now, Sen. Bakk is attempting to play hardball , insisting that "other state entities need Republicans' current quarters in the State Office Building." Senate Minority Leader Hann isn't buying, saying "if that's the case, Bakk should say who is it and when they're going to move, 'because that's all news to us.'"
What's especially laughable is that Bakk calls their refusal to move "short-term political gamesmanship." The truth is that Sen. Bakk doesn't like it when GOP legislators shine the spotlight on Bakk's Palace , my nickname for the new Senate Building. Bakk doesn't like the attention because he's trying to maintain his majority through the 2016 election. When House Republicans highlighted the House DFL's support for Bakk's Palace , they lost their majority.
When people take a look at Bakk's Palace , Republicans will remind them that Democrats voted to raise taxes on citizens, which paid for the $90,000,000 building. They'll also remind citizens that the DFL also voted to dramatically raise the pay of Gov. Dayton's commissioners.
Sen. Bakk should stop worrying about political gamesmanship. He should start worrying about the DFL's legislative history since the last election. Then he should kiss his majority status goodbye.
Posted Saturday, November 14, 2015 1:29 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Nov-15 07:35 AM
Bakk is an ass, not a real Democrat, closer to being a Republican, and an anti-transparency conniver with Daudt last session.
Essentially he and Tommasini are Iron Range privateers.
The sooner real Democrats purge him from DFL leadership of any stripe, the better.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-15 09:27 AM
That's BS, Eric. He's far from being a Republican.
Trump caught in his deception
Last night, Donald Trump got into a Twitter fight with Carly Fiorina, which was chronicled in this CNN article . Mrs. Fiorina got under Mr. Trump's thin skin by saying "Donald, sorry, I've got to interrupt again. You would know something about pathological," Fiorina said in a Facebook post. "How was that meeting with Putin?" It didn't take long for Trump to say "I only said I was on @60Minutes four weeks ago with Putin - never said I was in Green Room. Separate pieces - great ratings!"
According to the transcript from the Fox Business GOP Debate, Trump isn't telling the whole truth about what he said. The transcript clearly shows that Mr. Trump said "I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stable mates, and we did very well that night."
That's an interesting way of talking about things. Charlie Rose flew to Moscow earlier in the week to interview Putin. It'd be interesting to hear Mr. Trump explain how he got to know Mr. Putin without meeting him. Better yet, I'd love hearing Mr. Trump explain how he and Mr. Putin were stable mates while Putin was being interviewed in Moscow and Trump was sitting in Trump Towers.
To be fair, Trump is right that they both did well that night in terms of TV ratings. In fact, I'll stipulate that that fact is indisputable.
Posted Saturday, November 14, 2015 6:54 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Nov-15 06:49 AM
Fiorina ran Hewlett Packard into the ground with the Compac merger, and destroyed the culture of a sophisticated technical company because all she had was an MBA, and it is well known in technological cicles that the MBA's can run a sound venture aground faster than you can say, "Wow."
She's lied about the secretary to CEO. She was born on third base and tells it as hitting a triple. She is a dilettante.
