Anthem Penalties? They Are Who We Thought They Were

Don’t let em off the hook. 

We’ve all seen it and laughed each time we watched it. I’m referring to the classic line, The Bears are what we thought they were, and we let them off the hook!, press conference rant by the late great NFL head coach Dennis Green. To recap, Coach Green was referencing his Arizona Cardinals blowing a 4th quarter lead vs the top team in their conference, and eventual Super Bowl-bound Chicago Bears. Chicago was down 20 and made a great comeback to win the game, one of the greatest in the regular season.

Related: [2017 In Review] Kaepernick Vs. The NFL… The LCR Responds…

Keeping with the NFL theme, this week the 32 NFL owners and commissioner Rodger Goodell have concluded players must stand for the playing of the national anthem or face punishment.

The particulars of how the rule should be implemented and the corresponding penalties haven’t been mapped out just yet. And though owners and commissioner haven’t consulted the NFLPA (NFL Players Association) with this ruling, they did state if players did not want to stand they could wait in the locker room. See, that was nice of them.

And this is where the Dennis Green reference comes into play. The NFL owners are who we thought they were. Yeah yeah I know some owners have come out and stated they would pay the fines of their players. Some owners have expressed they believe in the players’ right to protest, and others are somewhere in between, reluctant to order players to stand but concerned about the bottom line… money.

These expressions come from a collective of owners whose average age is 70, that’s the average… 70. They make Congress look like Freshman orientation. They’re ALL billionaires and ALL except Shahid Khan are White. In other words, they literally have nothing in common with their employees, the players. And they don’t care to have anything in common. As Dennis Green said, “we let them off the hook” and the NFLPA is on the verge of doing so if they let the owners get away with enacting such a draconian rule without their consent and input.

The NFLPA must not allow the narrative to be spun around as if the players have presented a problem with kneeling during the anthem to protest injustices against Black people in America. They must not allow the virtually lost point of the protests, that they have NOTHING to do with the American flag or anthem directly. It has everything to do what the protests were about. If the protests were for cancer, the storyline would have lasted a week and nothing else would have been said about it.

The owners are exactly who we think they are. They’re a bunch of super rich old men who have allowed the national anthem protests to empower and transform the role and importance of players, specifically Black players. They want that power back, not to mention they completely disagree with why the protests started in the first place. The NFLPA once had a lead with the protests and now the owners are staging a comeback. Don’t allow the owners to come back and snatch victory away in the fourth quarter. The stakes are too high.

Subscribe for free for similar content. 

NFL Owners Cave to Trump… “Show Respect”

You can tell me where to line up. How to defend a certain play. Even what I should eat before a game. All that falls under what we call “coaching,” and the NFL probably does more of it than any other professional league. But when the NFL, or any organization in America for that matter, starts telling their employees what and who they should respect; as Americans, we should all question them and the current state of our country that makes anyone think it’s acceptable to render such a “rule.” This is America, and in America, it’s our right to stand… or not.

In 2018, the fact that our government, our institutions, or an employer, regardless of how powerful they might be, can make such demands is troubling. Times change, and democratic nations must make sure that change is always progressive and inclusive.

The NFL owners are a wealthy-predominantly-white-older-group of men. To say they lack diversity is an understatement. More than 70% of their players are Black, but it’s clear they didn’t consider their opinions, or consult their Union, prior to voting on this issue.

There’s only one reason for such a ruling. And believe it or not, it started at a Trump rally in rural Alabama. Yup, Donald Trump has done it again. The seeds he sowed months ago by rallying his base over this non-political issue and calling NFL players sons of bitches, has now blossomed and come to fruition. Despite many NFL owners being caught on tape at recent meetings criticizing Trump for his comments regarding their league and players, they’ve essentially caved to his far-right isolationist demand.

“All team and league personnel on the field shall stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem.”

…That’s the language released from the league office this morning.

Show respect for the flag and anthem. Because in America, we now threaten your employment and income if you choose to exercise your constitutional right.

But… there’s an exception… Players will not be required to be on the field during the anthem. So say 45 of the 53 active players decide to stay in the locker room week after week during the anthem, and Trump gets back on his bullhorn to criticize them and the owners for allowing them to do so via their new rule, should we expect the owners to be strong and not cave in this time? Probably not.

Gotta love strong-arm patriotism that ignores constitutional rights.

[Expect LCR Contributors to weigh in.] 

Iran: What Comes Next?

On May 8, President Donald Trump took perhaps the most consequential foreign policy action of his presidency thus far and announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. Despite the fact that Iran has verifiably been compliant with the terms of the agreement, President Trump has repeatedly characterized it as a “bad deal” and the promise to withdraw the United States from it was a central pillar of his campaign. Although it fulfills the President’s campaign promise, American withdrawal from the JCPOA is comprising international security, regional stability, and the United States’ role in the international arena.  

European allies including France and Germany had spent the past several months working to convince the administration to stay a part of the deal and have made their displeasure with this development clear, indicating that they will do what they can to save the deal without the United States. This is no small task and many European diplomats have admitted that it would be exceedingly difficult. The EU does have the option of imposing retaliatory sanctions to shield European businesses or having the European Central Bank invest directly in Iran, although given the strength and pervasiveness of the American financial system it is unlikely that this would be enough to maintain the deal’s benefits for Iran. Regardless a signal has been sent to our European partners that they cannot rely on the United States to display the international leadership they once did.

If and when it becomes clear that Iran will not achieve the economic benefits that the deal promised it is highly probable that they will resume their nuclear program. Hardliners within Iran will take this opportunity to make the case that diplomacy is futile and future agreements will become increasingly difficult. At the same time, the country’s more moderate President, Hassan Rouhani, will likely see his influence weakened. As the Iranian economy, which has already been suffering from unrelated US sanctions, continues to get worse, it is average Iranian citizens who will bear the brunt of the sanctions. This could lead to a degree of social unrest, although any protests are likely to get cracked down upon early and hard.

If Iran does reinstate its nuclear program it will be much harder to once again put together the international sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table to begin with. Sanctions against the Iranian regime were effective when the international community worked as a united front. Unilateral US sanctions are likely to have a substantially smaller impact on the regime’s actions. Many of the most effective US sanctions, known as “secondary sanctions” or sanctions, levied not on the Iranian regime directly but on parties doing business with Iran. The reimposition of these sanctions is likely to have the greatest impact as they will act as a significant deterrent to European businesses who were quick to begin doing business in the country after the sanctions were lifted. It will also impact American firms, such as Boeing which had a large deal in place to supply airplane parts to Iran’s civil airline.  

What will most likely happen?

The US sanctions will be enough to prevent Iran from getting the benefits of the nuclear deal, thereby causing the deal to fall apart, but not enough to curb its activities in the region.

Refusing to stick to the accords doesn’t just increase the likelihood that Iran will end up with a nuclear weapon in the near term, it also sets a bad precedent and undermines faith in the United States with regards to future international negotiations. This is especially pertinent considering the upcoming summit with North Korea. The deal that is reportedly being offered to Kim Jong-Un, economic relief in exchange for the cessation of the country’s nuclear program, is similar to the one that the Trump administration is now reneging on with Iran. If the US has proven itself unable to stick to a deal once agreed upon with Iran, why would the North Koreans expect to be treated any differently?

Regardless of what one thinks of the administration’s withdrawal from the deal, it happened. The question now is what’s next?

At the end of his speech announcing the American withdrawal, President Trump expressed a willingness to renegotiate the deal. There is however little indication of what the administration would hope to gain by doing so. In fact, the administration seems to have no clear strategy on the issue. The vague normative statements, half-truths, and political chest-thumping that have characterized the President’s comments on the issue are not enough. If regional and international security is to be maintained, it is essential that the administration has a clear strategy for how to handle Iran in both the near and long-term. 

Korean Reunification Will Never Work, and Here’s Why

In response to Trump Succeeds Where Obama Did Not

I have great hope for the upcoming talks with North Korea, and I agree that the tone and setting are different than they’ve ever been before.  That said, while there is a possibility of everyone getting what they want (and thus currently a sense of great optimism in the possibility by all sides, and a thrust of welcoming outreach as each party sets up for the talks), there remain quite a few conflicting, zero-sum core objectives that are likely to color the actual talks and their ultimate impact.

First among these is reunification itself.  While reunification is a North and South objective, “reunification” looks very different in the minds of the two heads of state.  These two nations remain at war because each of their governments is unwilling to not be the surviving entity.  Further, reunification is China’s worst outcome.  China is at times uncomfortable with the DPRK and sees a nuclear North as problematic, but ultimately, their needs are best met by having a divided Korea and a buffer state between China and US-aligned South Korea.  North Korea is unlikely to re-align with the West regardless of North/South relations, and is unlikely to open itself up much at all.

Northern power is based on their own narrative and control of information.  Strict adherence to this policy has given the Kim dynasty firm control over a starving population.  Family reunification on any meaningful scale is likely to provide an infection of truth that might well topple their hold on the hearts and minds of the North Korean people.  As such, hopes of reunification (even among families) seems hard to imagine.

Additionally, we have come to this place precisely because the DPRK is on the brink of developing a nuclear missile that can hit the US mainland.  This attention and recognition was precisely the DPRK’s objective in building this weapon, and when the talks are over and the DPRK improves its situation from desperately starving to abject poverty through foreign aid, they are likely to realize once again that their best alternative is to tear up any nuclear concessions and go back to threatening the world with nuclear weapons.

What worries me is the only end to this loop is a sub-optimal outcome nearly everyone in the region.  Imagine a world where the DPRK after successful agreements violates those concessions and returns to weapon production.  The US strikes a deal with China that the US will destroy the weapons sites with force, but will allow China (not South Korea) to enter.  South Korea bears the brunt of a conventional artillery barrage, but repels a DPRK advance – but at great loss of life.  North Korea becomes either part of China proper or a puppet vassal state, likely ending the prospect of Korean reunification for at least the next 100 years.  In order to gain China’s acquiescence, the US would likely have to agree to cede our heavy presence in the Pacific – greatly reducing the US footprint on land and water, and likely leaving South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and Japan to deal with China as the unequivocal regional hegemon.

And Trump may well like that deal.  It protects the US from a nuclear threat (America first), moves the US back from our global posture (which he has said from the start is among his objectives), and in exchange for the US conceding regional hegemony to China (which he and many others see as merely a realistic eventuality), he is likely to get strong trade concessions that will benefit US industry in the short term.  In the thousand year sense, China also likes that deal – with the US gone from the region, they return to their rightful place atop the Asian region- achieved through negotiations, money and Korean (not Chinese) blood.

So while all of that is good for the US and China, it may be a bit early to start handing out Nobel Prizes.  The Trump/Xi version of Realpolitik is more likely to look like it did in the Franco-Prussian era- like two great powers carving out their spheres of influence.  Perhaps I’m wrong.  But we will see…

A Tangled Web, Mueller Eyes Cohen

After a short lull in developments in the Mueller probe, the F.B.I. conducted a raid of Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room on Monday. While this is a significant development, it’s probably not as definitive or conclusive as some might wish. However, it is very interesting, and adds another layer to the complex network of connections this investigation is uncovering.

First, Mueller’s team didn’t order the raid, and it doesn’t appear to be directly related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But Mueller, apparently not willing to investigate all of the evidence his team uncovers, referred the matter to prosecutors unconnected with the investigation. Then the Justice Department gave the green light. This is a big deal. Trump’s own Justice Department authorized the raid.

So, what does this mean?

It doesn’t mean that Cohen had anything directly to do with Russian interference, although that might come up later. The search warrant includes documents from several years back, which might indicate that there’s a long history of shady dealings. One of those was a pitch by close Trump associate Felix Sater about a property deal in Russia. This is not a revelation; emails were uncovered recently between he and Cohen discussing the potentially lucrative deal.

It does mean that something big may be happening. Search warrants authorizing raids like this are used only in situations when it’s strongly believed that the subject will not willingly turn over potential evidence, and in fact may attempt to destroy it. While the raid isn’t because of suspicion of interference in the election, it could dredge up evidence that happens to have that connection. And this evidence will be shared with Mueller’s team. So, it would seem that Mr. Cohen has a lot to worry about, one way or another.

Cohen has been one of Trump’s closest confidantes for more than a decade. He’s been privy to many of the inner workings of the Trump Organization, and no doubt has many sensitive documents full of privileged information. Any evidence uncovered could have far-reaching consequences.

Trump can scream to the rafters that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt, but the search is an indication that there is a rumbling of a volcano that will surely erupt into real charges. When is anyone’s guess, but Mueller better have something solid to show pretty soon.

His job is more at risk now than ever before.

Sinclair Will Carry Trump’s Torch

If you didn’t know who Sinclair Broadcasting was prior to this week, chances are they silently crept up on you last week through one of their 193 locally owned TV stations. 193 might not sound like a lot, except it is… Sinclair’s 193 stations makes them the largest broadcaster in the US, which allows them to reach 40% of American homes. Sinclair, which is known for their conservative slant, is a publicly traded company; yet, it’s still owned and run by the founding Smith family who holds a majority interest. Last week their employed news reporters read the exact same script bashing supposed “fake news” that echoed throughout the rest of the country. When messaging is the same, the exact same, it’s no longer news, it’s propaganda… and that’s dangerous to say the least.

Take a look back to World War I. Woodrow Wilson and the American Government’s powerful use of propaganda, which was built on a lack of transparency, was in large part successful in the states and throughout the rest of the world in ultimately convincing people they were on the right side of history.

After major networks like CNN and MSNBC criticized Sinclair for said propaganda, President Trump quickly tweeted his praise for Sinclair calling them “far superior.”

To make things worse, Sinclair has a $4 billion proposed merger with Tribune Media on the table. If the merger is approved, Sinclair would be able to reach three out of four homes in America. Does anyone think our government or this administration is going to suppress this merger?

“He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense.” — Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim, 1900

When telecommunication companies like Sinclair succeed and continue to expand through mergers & acquisitions, democracy, different and honest perspectives, challenging yet compromising dialogue, loses, and nears a painful and regrettable demise.

If you’re a news reporter for a Sinclair owned station, you might find yourself in a career conundrum you never imagined. What should they do? Quit? Protest? Carry on? Make subtle facial expressions in an attempt to let you know their reading another bias politically slanted script? If you’re in one of their local markets chances are you depend of them for your local and national news. Should you not watch? Find another source of media and news?

These tough decisions will shape our nation? Media is a powerful tool, conservative or progressive ideology, it’s not a good idea for anyone, or any one group, to own the majority of our news outlets.

This is what propaganda in 2018 looks like: Sinclair News Clip

If we’re not careful, Sinclair will carry Trump’s torch long after his 4 (or 8) years in the White House. It might be too late.

Subscribe for free and share our content, different perspectives matter.

Despite Crazy News Cycle… We Should Remain Focused On Mueller

The media buzz around Meuller…

Two weeks ago as the President began to ratchet up his rhetoric against the Russia investigation, the press spent four days trying to drum up a narrative that Mueller was about to be fired, setting off a constitutional crisis. The basis was that the President was frustrated, attacking Mueller directly (which hadn’t happened before) and his past firing of Comey made it at least plausible that he might do something irrational. In supporting the narrative, CNN spent the weekend asking every GOP senator they could find whether they would support firing Mueller. As anyone could imagine, they were not supportive, and their solicited statements served to further whip up urgency that Mueller’s days were numbered. I truly don’t believe that anyone in the media thought that was really on the table; instead, a narrative to fill a slow news cycle on a Sunday.

Far more plausible is that the President ratcheted up his rhetoric because he had been promised by his lawyers the probe was going to wrap up soon. Against the President’s instincts, John Dowd had been promising him that compliance (not bravado) would carry the day. That’s not the President’s natural way, but he relented. The result was a probe that continued, and when his lawyers brought him the news that he was about to be asked to testify, he blew up at both his counsel (who he promptly dismissed), and without trust in their guidance, lashed out again in frustration. While that is petulant, childish and wholly unpresidential, that’s been no different from most of his tweets over the past year. It’s equally likely that a president who never seemed to collude with his Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, OMB chief or House and Senate leaders, also never took the time to collude with anyone on his staff talking to Russia (albeit more out of ADD than any principled stand), and is frustrated that his job is to put out a message, and yet Russia (and Stormy Daniels) have been the message over and over.

If the President didn’t understand with Comey, he understands now that the end of Mueller is the end of his administration. I can’t imagine any responsible person on either side of (or even 50 miles from) the aisle that wants any part of a president who actively colluded with an enemy nation to win his election. If that’s proven, all agree that he’s done. Further, if Mueller is fired before completing his work, the best possible outcome for the White House would be a re-start with a far more difficult prosecutor with far more reason to dig. The president firing Mueller is most likely the dream scenario for those starkly opposed to this president. Far more likely is that it drags on for another year, hangs shade over all of Washington for years to come, further pulls all of America toward the far right and far left, and we all spend the next 3 (to 7?) years reading what Jimmy Kimmel used to call “mean tweets.” These days that seemed like an antiquated characterization… These days, they’re just tweets.

Sports and Religion… Eagles Redefine Faith

If you haven’t noticed, the Philadelphia Eagles are not shy about thanking who they feel is most responsible for their athletic ability and team success. Whether you’re a religious person or not, it’s hard to push back on their collective sentiment considering their season ultimately ended with them defeating the favored New England Patriots in Super Bowl 52 (2/4/18).

Coaches, trainers, teammates, parents, the list goes on of who athletes usually thank first whenever a mic is shoved in their face after a big game. But not these Eagles… that first breath is reserved for their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, which was the common (genuine) theme you heard over and over after winning Philadelphia’s first pro football championship in more than 50 years.

You often hear a pro athlete here or there thank the Lord for their on-field success, but the Philadelphia Eagles all seem to be on the same page. Almost like political pundits sent out with their talking points prepared to answer contentious questions on the Sunday morning talk shows, they didn’t skip a beat. Do a little digging and you quickly find out this isn’t just for show. A majority of players attend weekly Bible class, and many of them were baptized over the past year like Marcus D. Johnson.

Last night I took another step forward in my faith. First time being baptized, and it wouldn’t have been possible withouth these group of MEN in this picture. Corporate worship is a beautiful thing!! Cleansed and reborn in Jesus name!!” – Marcus D. Johnson, Eagles Wide Reciever, (featured image above was posted by Marcus on his Instagram account: @mojomdj with this caption on October 12th, 2017) His picture garnered 4,600+ likes and nearly 300 comments.

“I wouldn’t be out here without God, without Jesus in my life… Unbelievable. All glory to God.” – Nick Foles, Eagles Quarterback, Super Bowl 52 MVP

Evangelicals, many of whom publicly support President Trump, have also been quick to publicly support the Philadelphia Eagles for their strong faith and Christianity. However, after the Super Bowl, many of these religious God-fearing Eagles quickly stated that they would not be attending the White House for the traditional visit. We’ll see if Evangelical support dwindles considering the White House will likely respond as time passes.

Either way, a quote from Tight End Zach Ertz might sum up the Eagles potential impact on millions of people around the world who have been questioning their faith.

“…faith and football this Sunday is huge. This is a platform to draw people to the Word, to Jesus. It’s not something we take for granted by any means.” – Zach Ertz, Eagles Tight End

Whether you’re a super religious person or not, it’s safe to say many people are probably re-examining their faith because of the Eagle’s willingness to publicly state how strong theirs is, and it’s hard to argue that’s not a good thing.

Similar read: Eagles Decline the White House

Progressive Woman Responds to SOTU

Last night, I went through a wide range of emotions watching the State of the Union address. I typically enjoy listening to this address, as it provides a high level report card on what the President and Congress have accomplished the previous year. I knew to expect some Republican propaganda, as all State of the Union addresses are heavily influenced by the party of the sitting President. However, something about last night was different causing the up and down of emotions I experienced.

President Trump touched on a wide variety of topics, from taxes to nuclear weapons and immigration to the opioid crisis. Unfortunately the common theme used when talking about the majority of the topics was fear. In his speech, Pres. Trump continuously pitted immigrants against Americans; environmentalists versus the coal industry; and the rich versus those who are less fortunate. Comments such as “Americans are Dreamers too;” “clean coal;” and everything he said about MS-13, though reports show White male Nationalists have killed the most Americans than any other political, ethnic or religious group in recent years, shed light on the fear he is striking in America, but packaging under the “Make America Great Again” theme.

Lastly, the showcasing of the many anomalies with all the guests in the audience he told stories about felt more like reality TV than true appreciation and/or sympathy. The Pres. and his team purposely sought out the most extreme examples and shamelessly used the grief of these families to drive his point home. Why did these families subject themselves to such a spectacle, I will probably never understand.

Conversative Vet Responds to SOTU

The nature of the state of the union speech, with its widely disseminated advance copies and formal nature, proved to be the most presidential delivery of any speech the president has given since his inauguration speech. While he seemed bored at times he did appear presidential. Still, it was a good moment for him (if only by comparison).

Nonetheless, it appeared that there were a number of cases he could have made stronger.

The power of that platform, speaking directly to the American people gave him a window to appeal for this wall – and for his amnesty plan… the great compromise that he’s proposed still needs a horse to drive through the legislature, and this was the perfect time to  demand the masses to be that horse – possibly sealing the issue and easily skirting another impending shutdown.

It was a missed opportunity that will likely gain even more attention should we be back again looking at a closed government with Schumer sitting on his hands.

His comment on Apple’s $350bn also seemed odd – while it’s a large number, it seemed to me that it was the first offer to see if the IRS of the new regime would accept that as “enough” as a strategy to onshore corporate income under the new tax reform laws. By touting it in his speech, he may have possibly intended to set the model for other US multinational companies, but he likely gave Apple an early pass before their time.

He generally made a good case for the economy, which is likely his most compelling argument and point of strength. I wonder, though, if he has the ability to stay on message and for how long.

Tonight our government felt sort of normal for the first time in a while… but I admit, I’m waiting with bated breath for the other shoe (or tweet) to drop.