September 22-23, 2017
Sep 22 01:29 MPCA, DFL killing the Iron Range Sep 22 11:23 The NFL's ratings dilemma Sep 22 14:26 The Democratic Party's insanity Sep 22 18:23 Don't trust the DFL. Here's why Sep 22 19:08 Innocent until proven guilty? Sep 23 03:13 Gov. Dayton, innocent bystander? Sep 23 08:50 Why Hillary lost, blah, blah, blah Sep 23 09:59 Gov. Dayton's faux outrage Sep 23 14:18 DeMaurice Smith's temper tantrum
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MPCA, DFL killing the Iron Range
Apparently, the MPCA, combined with the DFL, want to shut the Iron Range down permanently . According to the article, the "Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in August released a sulfate water standard to protect wild rice. This standard could be as low as 1mglL. In comparison, drinking water should be less than 250mglL. So what does this mean? The Iron Range businesses and city wastewater treatment plants will have to spend over $1 billion dollars to get into compliance."
John Arbogast with the United Steelworkers union at Minntac, the area's largest mine, said "This isn't the Twin Cities. This is all we have, and they're good-paying jobs, and these are hard-working people. They love living here, they love the fishing, the hunting, everything that comes with living on the Iron Range." Arbogast questioned the MPCA "at a RAMS/Iron Ore Alliance meeting with the MPCA a few months ago," asking "If the businesses and communities have to spend a billion dollars to meet this new standard, will the wild rice grow better?' The answer from the MPCA was 'we don't know.'"
Talk about stupidity. The MPCA just admitted that they're requiring $1,000,000,000 (that's one-billion dollars) worth of infrastructure improvements in small town Minnesota, then admitting that they don't know if this investment will improve water quality or help rice grow better.
Unfortunately, that isn't the worst part. Doug Ellis runs a a sporting goods store in Virginia. (Full disclosure: I've bought things from Doug's store. It's a great sporting goods store with a great atmosphere. But I digress.) According to this article , Ellis is quoted as saying "My business is built on mining money. It's what drives all these towns. So really what happens is, when the mines catch a cold, we all catch pneumonia."
Let's summarize briefly. The MPCA, which is part of a DFL administration, "released a sulfate water standard to protect wild rice" that they aren't sure will protect wild rice. What's known is that this rule will hurt mining, possibly killing several mines. What's known, too, is that many of these cities are already suffering. What's known, too, is that the DFL wants to inflict a major tax increase on these hard-working people at a time when they can't afford the basics.
That's immoral. How can the DFL and the MPCA justify this new rule and the major tax increase that's accompanying the rule with no guarantee that it will have any positive effects? That's like putting a gun to the Iron Range's head and telling them that they have to commit economic suicide just so some environmental activists can feel good about requiring a new anti-mining rule.
Let's be clear about something. The DFL has repeatedly proven that they hate miners and the supporting businesses on the Range. It's time to defeat the DFL in 2018 and elect a pro-Iron Range GOP governor so we can restore the prosperity that the Range knew a generation ago. If Republicans don't win this gubernatorial election, the DFL will destroy what's left of the Iron Range.
Posted Friday, September 22, 2017 1:30 AM
Comment 1 by Mary at 22-Sep-17 12:19 PM
Leave our range alone! If they cannot give statistic of using that much money, should never then be given & spent. I do believe, that the twin city people/government do not care about people & their life on the range. I believe that they see this as "their vacation" area, & nothing more.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Sep-17 12:56 PM
Mary, here's what I've seen: the Twin Cities DFL doesn't give a damn about the Iron Range. They've written the Range off economically. The DFL's economic policies have hurt the Range for years. I can't say that Rangers will agree with every Republican policy. The truth is that they won't. What I'll confidently state, though, is that Republicans start from the standpoint that they want everyone to succeed. The DFL can't (and doesn't) say that. That's pretty telling.
Comment 2 by Scott at 22-Sep-17 09:12 PM
What I find curious is that both mining and wild rice thrived together for well over 100 years, and now is when environmentalists are crying wolf that mining is killing the wild rice. How is it that wild rice thrived without environmentalists meddling for so many years, and now that the noose keeps tightening around the Iron Range, it is also choking out the wild rice? I have a good feeling that it isn't the mines (directly) killing the wild rice, but in fact it is being restricted from nutrients required to survive do to the extreme filtration already done through the mining environmental regulations. In other words, the environmentalists are killing the wild rice through their enforcement of the mines having to become cleaner than Mother Nature herself. Cleaning the water further will result in an absolute loss of wild rice, and the environmentalists will continue to point their fingers in the wrong direction, blaming the mines for this loss.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Sep-17 01:23 AM
Perhaps you've heard the joke that the best way to find different tribes' ancient burial grounds or high spiritual places is to propose a mining or pipeline project?
Comment 3 by Lisa at 23-Sep-17 01:22 AM
Scott, you are correct. And environmentalists don't really care about the damage they cause to the earth. They are in it for a paycheck only. And the truth isn't anything they are familiar with.
Comment 4 by erickajen at 25-Sep-17 10:58 AM
Mary's comment makes me wonder - if they kill us, how are they going to come here on their pampered vacations? they dont realize that if they kill us, theres no hotels to stay in, no RV sites with electricity and they are going to have to vacation by pitching a tent. so much for a vacation destination...
Comment 5 by Kevin Nisen at 25-Sep-17 08:46 PM
Stupidity has no boundaries.
The NFL's ratings dilemma
Ever since Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the National Anthem, people started asking whether the NFL had a patriotism problem. The truth is that the NFL has a progressive activism problem. Thanks to this article , we now know that some current and retired NFL players "campaigning for racial equality and criminal justice reform wrote a lengthy memo to league commissioner Roger Goodell officially seeking overt league support in their effort, including an endorsement for an activism awareness month."
Supposedly, the "memo seeks an investment of time and education, political involvement, finances and other commitments from the league. It also sought to have the NFL endorse the month of November as an activism awareness month, similar to the periods of league calendar dedicated to breast cancer awareness and military recognition. It was endorsed by four players: Seattle Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett, Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, former Buffalo Bills wideout Anquan Boldin and Eagles wideout Torrey Smith."
NFL ratings are down, most likely due to the fact that people want sports to be a refuge separated from politics. These players' decision couldn't come at a worse time for the NFL. In addition to the NFL having a patriotism problem and an image problem, now players are proving that they, like NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, have a tin ear politically. President Trump and others have ridiculed celebrities for speaking out politically. After the Emmys last week, which also suffered from terrible ratings, people just want to be left alone. They don't want to hear celebrities sound like ill-informed progressives, which is what they are.
By comparison, baseball's image is improving, mostly because it's stuck to -- get this -- improving their on-field product. It won't take long before baseball regains its title of America's national pastime. But I digress. Back to football's dilemma.
Everyone's heard the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. That's a proper starting point but I don't think that applies to this picture:
This was the view at the start of the game:
People won't be as committed to watching football as long as football players play the part of political proxies. People are already sick of politicians. Why would people get excited about tuning in football if they think a Michael or Martellus Bennett, Marshawn Lynch or Marcus Peters will disrespect America. Americans have already had their fill of people who criticize America.
Deep at the heart of the NFL's problems is the fact that they're getting the reputation of being another proxy of the Democratic Party. Roger Goodell certainly hasn't hidden his political positions. ESPN has frequently sounded like the sports equivalent of the DNC. (Think of Trey Wingo gushing for days about the then-St. Louis Rams drafting Michael Sam, the first openly gay NFL athlete.)
If Michael and Martellus Bennett, Marshawn Lynch and Marcus Peters want to be activists, let them quit their day jobs and do it for a living. If they aren't willing to make that choice, then people should have the right to mock them and/or ignore them.
Posted Friday, September 22, 2017 11:23 AM
No comments.
The Democratic Party's insanity
A generation ago, the Democratic Party was a legitimate political party. It isn't anymore. Today's Democrats have gone so far around the bend that even lifelong Democrats have started backpedalling ... fast. Jim Geraghty's column illustrates just how foolish the Democratic Party is. What caught my attention is the paragraph that says "The Democratic party's leaders haven't changed their methods, either. They denounced Trump and his 'Deplorables' and the rest of the Republican party in the most furious terms in 2016, but that didn't produce the results they wanted. In 2017, Democrats decided to just keep on doing that, but with more profanity."
Later, Geraghty wrote "After 2016, one might have expected Democrats to reconsider their full embrace of identity politics. Instead they've doubled down. Instead of examining why so many voters in so many states rejected their arguments and philosophies, many within the academy and universities greeted 2017 by insisting even more adamantly that freedom of speech is dangerous and that you should be threatened or violently assaulted if you express a view they disagree with. Instead of giving the lecturing speeches at awards shows a break, Hollywood celebrities are becoming even more politically outspoken and strident, and even more openly contemptuous of roughly half their audience."
Rational people wouldn't think that Sending rioters to a congressman's front steps isn't a way to prove you're rational, either:
These tactics might help fire up the Democratic Party's bi-coastal base but they won't help flip any of the districts or states that they'll need to retake the House, Senate or the White House. Republicans will increase their margin in the Senate, thereby marginalizing John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. Republicans will maintain their House majority, too. Most importantly, they'll have net gains in terms of governorships, state legislators and total control of state governments.
This isn't because Republicans are doing a great job. I've repeatedly said that they aren't. It's because Democrats are doing a great job frightening people, either with violence or unaffordable ideas like Medicare for All.
Next November, Democrats will gather somewhere to question what went wrong ... again. The Media Wing of the Democratic Party won't accept the fact that they're hurting the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party won't figure it out that their policies don't appeal to many people. Instead, they'll think that the enthusiasm that their supporters show are proof that they're on the right track. They'll be wrong ... again.
Posted Friday, September 22, 2017 2:26 PM
No comments.
Don't trust the DFL. Here's why
Earlier today, Gov. Dayton accused the GOP legislative leadership of lying about how much money they had in reserves. He even had the audacity of publishing a statement essentially accusing Republicans of negotiating in bad faith. (This coming from the politician who promised to sign a $1,000,000,000 tax relief bill in 2016. How rich.)
Part of Gov. Dayton's statement said "I have said repeatedly that my reason for exercising my Constitutional line-item veto of some of the Legislature's biennial appropriation was to require them to revise their 2017 tax bill, which I believe will seriously jeopardize Minnesota government's future financial stability. Republican legislative leaders have said repeatedly that the reason for their lawsuit was to provide them with sufficient funds to operate in this biennium."
Why didn't the Twin Cities media ask Gov. Dayton why he negotiated (then subsequently agreed to) the Tax Bill? Certainly, he agreed to the Tax Bill because he called the special session. Why would he call a special session if he didn't major provisions in the bill? Is it because he's just stupid? Or is it because he decided that he wasn't going to honor his promise? Here's Gov. Dayton's full statement:
One of the eye-popping paragraphs in Gov. Dayton's mediation statement said this:
I was not surprised by the intransigence of Republican legislative leaders during this attempted mediation. But the reason for their intransigence was a surprise. They have now revealed that they already have more than enough money to operate both the House and the Senate at their projected levels of spending, until they reconvene in Session next February.
WCCO-TV said this about that statement:
Currently, there's no agreement in sight, and the Legislature is set to run out of money beginning Oct. 1. As it stands, the Legislature has enough money in reserve to continue operations until Dec. 1. After that, the jobs of hundreds of staffers are in jeopardy.
As much as Gov. Dayton wants to distort what's happening, the Courts have the full and truthful figures. As for Gov. Dayton, there's little reason to trust him. He's already reneged on his negotiated tax bill deal. He's frequently played with people's livelihoods, especially if they live on the range or are blue collar workers. Trusting him is foolish because he's gone back on his word too often. Here's the full text of Gov. Dayton's statement:
I thank our Mediator, former Judge Rick Solum, for his concerted efforts over the past two days to help the Legislature and our Administration negotiate a settlement of the issues that have divided us. For the past four months, I have advocated for just such a negotiated agreement.
I have said repeatedly that my reason for exercising my Constitutional line-item veto of some of the Legislature's biennial appropriation was to require them to revise their 2017 tax bill, which I believe will seriously jeopardize Minnesota government's future financial stability. Republican legislative leaders have said repeatedly that the reason for their lawsuit was to provide them with sufficient funds to operate in this biennium.
I was not surprised by the intransigence of Republican legislative leaders during this attempted mediation. But the reason for their intransigence was a surprise. They have now revealed that they already have more than enough money to operate both the House and the Senate at their projected levels of spending, until they reconvene in Session next February.
Their cash surplus contradicts the high drama they have been manufacturing during the past four months. Just today one of their members asserted, "... the governor used his line-item veto power to eliminate funding for the Legislature, effectively abolishing the legislative branch."
Their current cash position also contradicts the assertions made in their filing with the Minnesota Supreme Court this past week. It stated, 'Assuming the House and Senate spend as anticipated through October 1, 2017, and only begin using their carryforward funds thereafter, the anticipated date carryforward funds will be exhausted is as follows: House: After payment of payroll on February 1, 2018. Senate: After payment of payroll on December 1, 2017.'
However, this statement fails to disclose what the Republican legislative leaders have known - or should have known - for some time. In addition to their carry-forward funds, they have stated they will use the Legislative Coordinating Commission's biennial carry-forward monies of over $3.6 million and appropriation of over $35 million to completely fund their expected operating expenses until they return to Session next year. They admit their Legislative Counsel has advised them that they can do so.
Republican leaders have claimed repeatedly that they had to file their lawsuit and cost taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, to prevent the Legislature from being 'abolished' by my vetoes depriving them of operating funds. Now, after the Court forced their financial disclosure, we learn their claim is untrue.
They owe the Minnesota Supreme Court and the people of Minnesota an honest explanation of why they have dragged all of us into their costly theatrics over the past four months.
First, Gov. Dayton's statement is a distraction from what's most important about this lawsuit. No governor should have the authority to defund another branch of government. Period. That path is fraught with perils, none of which are anything but disastrous. The thought that Gov. Dayton, or other governors in the future, would have the court-sanctioned ability to punish the judicial or legislative branches for not doing as he wishes is frightening.
Gov. Dayton's term in office can't end quickly enough.
Posted Friday, September 22, 2017 6:23 PM
No comments.
Innocent until proven guilty?
You'd think that a former California attorney general would understand the basics of our legal system. After reading Kamala Harris's tweet about Education Secretary DeVos's rescinding "Obama-era guidance on investigating campus sexual assault, puts interim rules in place." In her tweet, Sen. Harris said "This is infuriating. We should be strengthening, not weakening, protections for sexual assault survivors."
Sen. Harris' statement assumes that all women who step forward are rape victims. Further, Sen. Harris' statement doesn't say a thing about protecting the right of defendants to question their accusers. Does Ms. Harris think it's ok for women to be able to accuse men of raping them anonymously? In what universe is that ok?
In her Twitter bio, Sen. Harris said that she is "dedicated to fighting for justice & giving voice to the voiceless." That sounds nice but I don't think she means it. Instead, I think she's just another man-hating mad woman from California. We finally got rid of Sen. Boxer, one of the original man-haters of the Senate, and she's replaced with another man-hating woman.
With a state as populated as California, wouldn't you think that they'd be able to find someone more interested in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Posted Friday, September 22, 2017 7:08 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton, innocent bystander?
To hear DFL State Party Chair Ken Martin tell it, Gov. Dayton was the victim of dishonest Republican legislative leadership. Appearing on TPTAlmanac, Martin said that "Kurt Daudt put a poison pill" that would have "defunded the Department of Revenue" if he didn't sign the GOP Tax Relief Bill. Later, Martin insisted that Speaker Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Gazelka lied to the Supreme Court with their representation of cash reserves. (Of course, Martin has to say that because Gov. Dayton said it first.)
Chairman Martin pretended that Speaker Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Gazelka pointed a gun at Gov. Dayton's head and forced him to call the special session even though he didn't like the GOP Tax Relief Bill. That's utter foolishness. Only the governor can call a special session. It's been Gov. Dayton's tradition that he hasn't called a special session until all of the bills were worked out and agreed upon. Why shouldn't we think that he'd initially agreed to the Tax Bill, then got discreet criticism from the hard-line activist left? After all, there were a bunch of them running for governor who weren't going to vote for the tax bill.
Here's the question that Chairman Martin didn't want to answer: if Gov. Dayton didn't like the GOP Tax Relief Bill, why did he call a special session without negotiating a bill more to his liking? Before the session starts, Gov. Dayton had leverage. Why didn't he use it? There's other questions worth asking, too. First, did Gov. Dayton initially agree to the bill, then 'change' his mind when the hardliners got to him? Next, would the Department of Revenue provision be a poison pill if he planned on signing the GOP Tax Relief Bill as previously agreed to ?
The other thing that hasn't been questioned is why Gov. Dayton has consistently opposed tax relief. Feeding government has been his top priority. Opposing tax relief has been his next highest priority, with raising taxes a close third.
It isn't like wages have increased dramatically during his administration. It isn't like he's fought for projects that would've benefitted blue collar workers. The truth is that Gov. Dayton has fought against those projects each time he's had the opportunity. He sat like an innocent bystander while the Sandpiper Pipeline project got killed. Gov. Dayton hasn't lifted a finger to make PolyMet a reality. In fact, his legacy on mining is that he's the most anti-mining governor in recent Minnesota history. Finally, Gov. Dayton has acted like an innocent bystander while his anti-commerce Commerce Department testified against an important pipeline infrastructure project.
Chairman Martin's job would be so much easier if he didn't have to defend Gov. Dayton's indefensible decisions. Still, I don't feel sorry for him. He knew the job going in.
Posted Saturday, September 23, 2017 3:13 AM
No comments.
Why Hillary lost, blah, blah, blah
Stan Greenberg's article is nothing more than another attempt to blame Hillary's defeat on everything except Hillary. I can't dispute the fact that Mr. Greenberg said that "Hillary Clinton's tragic 2016 campaign faced withering criticism in the press, social media, and now, in Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes's inside account, Shattered. From my vantage point as lead pollster for the Democratic nominees in 1992 and 2000, part of the closing clutch of pollsters in 2004, and invited noodge in 2016, I have little quarrel with the harshest of these criticisms. Malpractice and arrogance contributed mightily to the election of Donald Trump and its profound threat to our democracy."
Then he launches into his explanation that it wasn't really Hillary's fault and that Democrats everywhere have fallen into the same trap. Greenberg insists that "the campaign relied far too heavily on something that campaign technicians call 'data analytics.' This refers to the use of models built from a database of the country's 200 million voters, including turnout history and demographic and consumer information, updated daily by an automated poll asking for vote preference to project the election result."
This article is masterful spin. Woven into the article is why Hillary really lost:
Malpractice and arrogance contributed mightily to the election of Donald Trump and its profound threat to our democracy. So did the handling of the email server, paid Wall Street speeches, and the "deplorables" comment. And her unwillingness to challenge the excesses of big money and corporate influence left her exposed to attacks first by Bernie Sanders and then by Donald Trump and unable to offer credible promise of change.
This isn't malpractice or arrogance. It's Hillary's elitism showing. As for Hillary's "unwillingness to challenge the excesses of big money and corporate influence", it isn't surprising. Hillary is a creation of Wall Street. For Hillary to challenge the excesses of big money, she'd need to entirely change who she is. That simply wasn't going to happen.
Then there's this:
For me, the most glaring examples include the Clinton campaign's over-dependence on technical analytics; its failure to run campaigns to win the battleground states; the decision to focus on the rainbow base and identity politics at the expense of the working class; and the failure to address the candidate's growing "trust problem" or to learn from events and reposition.
What type of idiot doesn't "run campaigns to win the battleground states"? What type of idiot stands by Robbie Mook, who argued "that the Sanders vote grew 'organically - turnout was unexpectedly high and new registrants broke against Clinton"?
I don't care why she lost. I'm just happy that she did lose. I'm happy that that's what happened.
Posted Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:50 AM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton's faux outrage
Thanks to Rachel Stassen-Berger's quoting Gov. Dayton , Minnesotans will have a better picture of why Gov. Dayton let them down. Ms. Stassen-Berger quoted Gov. Dayton as saying "I was angry. I told them in my 40 years dealing with Minnesota government, I have never, ever been lied to - and I don't use that word lightly,' Dayton said. 'The people of Minnesota have been lied to and the Supreme Court's been lied to. : That infuriated me and it deeply offends me."
Gov. Dayton's statement offends me. I don't want to hear his faux outrage. I wrote this article to highlight how then-MMB Director Showalter intentionally misled the State Government Finance conference committee. At dispute was the budget for Veterans Affairs. Gen. Shellito was led to believe that Veterans Affairs budget would be cut when, in actuality, they were getting a significant increase.
Jim Showalter later testified that he came up with that theory based on past statements by committee members. He didn't rely on actual spreadsheets. Gov. Dayton's administration lied to a conference committee. This didn't happen by accident. It happened right before Gov. Dayton's pre-planned government shutdown. BTW, this was a recurring theme that budget season.
Gov. Dayton, please don't insult us and tell us that you haven't misled people. There's ample proof that you did. This paragraph sounds suspicious:
But Dayton said that strikes at the very reason he vetoed $130 million of funding for the House and Senate. He has said he is concerned that the tax cuts will cause Minnesota's budget to go into deficit. Dayton has said he only signed the tax bill in the spring because lawmakers hid a provision elsewhere that would defund the entire 1,500-person state Department of Revenue if he did not.
First, I don't doubt that Ms. Stassen-Berger got the information right. That isn't what I find suspicious. What I find suspicious is the fact that Gov. Dayton hasn't said that the GOP Tax Relief package would cause a deficit. Since Gov. Dayton hasn't used that argument before, I'm skeptical. He certainly didn't make that argument when he line-item vetoed the operating budget for the legislature.
Furthermore, this is just another distraction from the Dayton administration. That's a political argument, not a constitutional argument. The argument still before Minnesota's Supreme Court is whether a governor should have the right to immobilize another co-equal branch of government with his veto pen.
The Supreme Court's ruling stated that Minnesotans have the right to 3 fully functioning branches of government. Now that mediation failed, which is was destined to do, we'll see whether the Court that Gov. Dayton stuffed with longtime DFL operatives will side with the Constitution or with Gov. Dayton. At this point, I'm not certain they won't rule against their first ruling. I wouldn't be surprised if they sided with Gov. Dayton even though they said Minnesotans have the constitutional right to 3 fully functioning co-equal branches of government.
Gov. Dayton, spare me the faux outrage. During your time in office, you've tried convincing us that you didn't know that the 2013 Tax Bill you personally negotiated with Tom Bakk and Paul Thissen contained a sales tax on farm equipment repairs. At the time, you said you first found out about it the day before the 2013 FarmFest event. You also insisted that you didn't know that the Vikings stadium deal that you personally negotiated and that you signed had a provision in it allowing the Vikings to sell PSLs.
Those sound like lies to me, Sir, so spare me the faux outrage.
Posted Saturday, September 23, 2017 9:59 AM
No comments.
DeMaurice Smith's temper tantrum
DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFLPA, is getting bent out of shape after President Trump trolled NFL players during a campaign rally in Alabama Friday night. First, President Trump said what thousands of NFL fans are thinking when he said "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say 'get that son of a b***h off the field right now - he's fired." Republicans and independents everywhere cheered when he said that.
As the executive director of the NFLPA, aka the NFL players' union, DeMaurice Smith had to say something, which he did when he said "Whether or not [NFL commissioner] Roger [Goodell] and the owners will speak for themselves about their views on player rights and their commitment to player safety remains to be seen. This union, however, will never back down when it comes to protecting the constitutional rights of our players as citizens as well as their safety as men who compete in a game that exposes them to great risks."
Everyone gets it that players have the right to protest. It's just that millions of people, literally, would prefer that they and other progressive celebrities, aka actors, would opt not to protest. Most fans just want to tune into a game to tune out the political world. DeMaurice Smith apparently hasn't figured that out.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell chimed in, saying in this statement "The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture. There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we've experienced over the last month. Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities."
What Commissioner Goodell omits from that statement is that the NFL gets a black eye when Commissioner Goodell initially treats domestic violence as a joke. When Ray Rice first struck his then-fiance in a New Jersey casino, Goodell suspended him for 2 games. When Commissioner Goodell says that President Trump demonstrates "an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL", my reply is straightforward. The NFL's tin-eared reactions to domestic violence and the players' acceptance of disrespecting the National Anthem and the American flag has earned them tons of disrespect. If the NFL wants respect, they need to earn that respect. If they don't learn that lesson, their TV and approval ratings will continue to sink.
Posted Saturday, September 23, 2017 2:18 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 23-Sep-17 04:53 PM
And the NFL wonders why it's ratings keep dropping. No one wants to watch a bunch of over privileged and undereducated athletes (and actors) protest or speak out about anything.
Worst thing about this is that they started protesting inequality after the likes of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and other like them met their end. To protest inequality after thugs like that die because of their own stupidity is like the actor or athlete saying they condone what those thugs were doing and America as a whole is sick of it.
