Month: October 2017

Remember back in early 2015 when Donald Trump decided to put his name into the Republican list of candidates for President of the Unitied States . . . a good decision. Then in mid and late 2015 the initial Republican debates had a myriad of potential presidential candidates. No way at this point can I remember the names of all these potential candidates. As the months went by many of these potentials dropped out mainly because they realized that they had no chance . . . all good decisions. On the debate stages Donald Trump was in the center in the beginning and he remained in the center throughout. There was a reason for this. . . he was making good decisions.

As the field narrowed in the early part of 2016, the remainder of the potential candidates basically took one of two basic avenues of approach – one was to choose to go head-to-head with Mr. Trump and the other was to avoid direct confrontation with him. Those that avoided a direct confrontation were obviously not the final Republican nominee, but their reputations remained intact (Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee).. . . all good decisions.

Jeb Bush decided to go one-on-one with Mr. Trump . . . a bad decision! It was no contest. He was humiliated and shot down. My guess is that we will not hear from him in the future.
Ted Cruz learned a lesson when some of his supporters went after Mr. Trump’s wife. Mr. Cruz did not immediately and vociferously show distain for this lowball tactic . . . a bad decision. Mr. Trump counterattacked, and it was not pretty.

Recently the NFL and their liberal genuflectees made a decision to go head-to-head with Mr. Trump . . . a bad decision. Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner is now having second thoughts as the league’s TV ratings are tanking and the attendance at the live games is decreasing. Goodell and the NFL now have a second chance. Hopefully they will make a good decision!
On 10/16/17 President Trump and Mitch McConnell had lunch at the White House.. I think that it is reasonable to say that these two have not had a cordial relationship prior to this lunch date. Mr. McConnell had a decision to make.. Accept the invitation or not. He accepted . . . good decision.

What went on at lunch? Oh! to be the proverbial fly on the wall. Whatever transpired, the result was that both men emerged smiling and for all intents and purposes, on the same page, as together they then held a news conference. From my perspective Mr. McConnell had some crucial decisions to make at lunch. He made these decisions . . . seemingly good decisions.
In retrospect, perhaps Jeb Bush and the NFL should have sought Mr. McConnell’s counsel before going head-to-head with The Donald.

“We got a new kid on our swim team today,” said one of my daughters at dinner one night many years ago. “Well it’s not really a new kid. It’s James, but he told us all today that he wants to be called Murphy Patterson from now on. For the entire practice he would not respond to anyone unless he was specifically called Murphy Patterson.”
This “I’m not who I am, but I’m somebody else because that’s how I see myself” lasted for a few days until some adult in the room (either one or both of James’ parents or perhaps Phil, the swim coach) recognized the folly of “Murphy Patterson”, and restored sanity and “James” to the swim team.
Could it be possible that James is now a member of the California Senate? Obviously the odds would be against this happening, but I am trying to find some logic in the California Senate’s recent passage of SB219, which in essence says everyone must call James whatever he wants to be called or be fined.
To whit, SB219 states that would be unlawful for a long term care facility or it staff to willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.
Help me here, but doesn’t this sound like the revenge of Murphy Patterson? Namely you will call me what I want to be called or you might receive $1000 in fines or up to one year in jail (as reported by CBN news). I guess it could be worse, or perhaps I should say more ‘looney tunes’ as you could live in Canada where Bill C16 is already in place and violations can be considered a hate crime! Likewise in NYC (Now You’re Crazy) failure to comply with similar measures as instituted by de Blasio’s Commission of Human Rights can lead to civil penalties of up to $125,000, and, if due to “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct”, up to $250,000.
But back to California where the pronoun part of SB219 is even more insane, and refers to not only to the pronouns, “he/she/his/her/them”, but also the pronouns, “ze” and “hir” which are popular gender free pronouns used by some transgender and/or gender-nonconforming individuals.
I guess I can gloss over the Canadian lunacy as I do not live there, but as far as I know the USA (which still includes New York and California) still has a First Amendment and I’m pretty sure that this means that I do not have to call James, “Murphy Patterson” or refer to him as ze or hir under penalty of law.
I would guess that by now those of you who do not live in California (or NYC, or Canada) are probably chuckling to yourself at this craziness, but it is even more laughable if you do live in California because we are actually paying these loons in our Senate and Assembly to think up and vote on stuff like this! On 10/4/17 SB219 was signed into law by Gov. ‘Moonbeam’ Brown-and we are paying ze (him/her) too!
It is no wonder that the rest of the country refers to California as ” the land of fruits and nuts”, and are happy that they do not live hir!!

During the end of the baseball season I came across two interesting baseball box scores on the sports page:
Colo.  7  12  1
Atl.     6  13  0
and
Pit.     1   4   0
Cin.   0   5   0

For you non baseball fans, the initial number represents “runs”.
The second number represents “hits” and the third represents “errors”.
Now what if those in Cincinnati and Colorado said that they had won because they had more hits than Pittsburg and Atlanta respectively. Of course any knowledgeable fan would reply, “The rules state that the winner is the one with the most runs – not the most hits. You cannot change the criteria for winning after the game has been played. You are sore losers, Cincinnati and Atlanta fans.”
In baseball if hits were more important than runs, the strategy and the type of desired players would be different. One would retool his team to have more players that hit more singles and strike out less, and less players who hit home runs but strike out more, because in that scenario a single and a home run would count the same as each would be “one hit.”
Now does this tale have anything to do reality? Well again and again I am still hearing the now trite and quite tiresome excuse of “Hilary should be in the White House because she won the popular vote.”
To them I continue to reply, “Good for Hilary, but the popular vote is not how the game is decided. The popular vote is like “hits” in the above box scores. The team with the most runs wins the baseball game, and here the electoral college votes are the equivalent of “runs” in baseball. If hits and not runs were the deciding factor, then perhaps a different make-up of team would have been advantageous, and perhaps the games (and the campaign) would have been played differently.
Note to Democrats: Next time get a smarter candidate who understands the art of a successful campaign strategy tailored to winning the electoral college.

Trump ran a campaign based on the rules which were and still are that the higher electoral vote tally wins, and BTW, “shut up and stop whining!”

I think that these days we are not merely involved in an era of intense political disagreement, but I think that we are involved in a war. The enemy is Leftism.
First of all it is important to realize that in this war, just about any kind of dishonest underhanded behavior is not considered dishonest or underhanded by the Left, but rather is not only accepted but also encouraged. Leftism is in fact like a religion where anything is permissible if it is done to further the cause. No weapon is considered to base to use. I have not read Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’, but if I were to guess, the following would be a partial list of tactics that would be encouraged to defeat opponents:
Ridicule
Humiliation
Slander
Insults
False Accusations
Innuendo
Outright Lies
When Accused . . . Deny
Even though none or perhaps just a smidgeon of what one says or does is true, if you continue to repeat it over and over again often enough . . . then it becomes just as good as the truth. It is accepted.
“Trump colluded with the Russians.” “Trump colluded with the Russians.”
Now even though there hasn’t been a smidgeon of evidence to prove that false accusation, CNN and MSNBC viewers believe that it is true . . . “It must be true as I have heard it over and over again”!
“Trump is going to be impeached.”
“Really! Why?”
“Because he is colluding with the Russians .”
And it goes on from there, because those on the left do not care about veracity.
They only want to destroy their enemies, and it does not matter how they do it.
Recall that Lying, Slander, and Innuendo are not only accepted, but encouraged by the Left.
Recently, a friend of mine was extolling the virtues of Rep. Scott Peters.(D, Ca.) “Oh he is such a nice man. His father was a minister.” Those two things may in fact be true, but of no consequence, because this is politics. When Scott Peters was initially elected, he barely beat Carl DeMaio. In fact DeMaio was ahead in the race with about a week to go, when someone who used to work in DeMaio’s office accused Mr. DeMaio of sexual harassment and more. This accusation made the local papers and TV news. After the election, it turned out that these accusations were spurious and made up. Scott Brown claimed that he knew nothing about these accusations being untrue, but did not refute them before the election. Did he know about this lying? Did he close his eyes to this deceit? This will always be a question in my mind, as recall that Slander, False Accusations, and Outright Lying are not only accepted, but encouraged by the Left.
When Hollywood mogul uber liberal Harvey Weinstein was credibly accused of multiple episodes of sexual harassment (and more) by multiple women, the Left immediately began saying that Donald Trump would be next. Of course the fact that they had already tried this before (and failed) did not matter. Recall that Innuendo and False Accusations are not only accepted, but encouraged by the Left.
So when I heard Al Franken (D,Mn)questioning Jeff Sessions the other day on T.V., I was not shocked when I heard the ex-SNLer using his standard line of questioning featuring Innuendo, False Accusations, and Outright Lies, as these are not only accepted but encouraged by the Left.
Whenever I see Adam Schiff (D,Ca) opening his mouth, I do not actually have to listen as he only speaks out of the left side of his mouth. He is always spewing Slander, Innuendo, False Accusations, etc. as these are not only accepted but expected from a leftist like him!

When we elect a U.S. Senator or a U.S. member of the House, he/she is supposed to represent us in Washington D.C. Now we may or may not agree with that elected person all of the time, but he/she is our voice when it comes to national matters. These elected representatives are paid a salary that comes from the taxes that we pay. In essence they work for us. We, the citizens of  their state or district, are the employers and they are the employees.
Likewise when we elect a member of the California legislature, he/she is our representative in Sacramento when it comes to state issues. They are paid to deal with matters concerning California, and they are paid essentially by us through the state taxes that we pay. Again the citizens of California are the employers, and they are our employees. If they were frivolously wasting their time while on the clock, we, the employers, would have a legitimate beef. “Why, when you are on company time and we are paying you, are you not doing things that are related to the state’s business?

Certainly in any private enterprise the employer has the right to demand that his employees spend their time working – working on company items and company business. Certainly, the employer would be justified in asking, “Why when I am paying your salary, are you doing things on company time that are not pertinent to my company?”
Likewise when we elect someone to the City Council, they are our representatives in a matters related to the city. We, the citizens of the city, are in essence paying their salaries through the taxes that we pay. We are the employers and they are our employees. Should we not expect them, while on company time, to spend their time and energy dealing with city issues and city business?

On 10/17/17 in a closed door session the San Diego City Council voted to support an amicus brief in a case concerning a Colorado baker. This case is scheduled to be heard on December 5th before the U.S. Supreme Court. Apparently this amicus brief proposal was brought to the City Council for a vote at the bequest of Mara Elliott, a San Diego City Attorney.

There are so many things wrong here that I am not sure where to start!

First of all . . . “Closed door session”! Why in God’s name would this vote be held in a closed door session? From my perspective, there are only two reasonable explanations for discussing anything in a closed door session. One obvious good reason is that there is sensitive and private information that is being discussed. To me the other obvious reason is to hope that the public does not hear about it. If one was trying to cover up some frivolous behavior, a closed session would be perfect.

Second . . . why is the San Diego City Council wasting company time discussing and then voting to support or not support some case involving Colorado? Even if the case was centered in another part of California, this would not be a matter for the San Diego City Council. Again, forgive me, but shouldn’t our employees (the City Council) be spending their time dealing with our city’s issues? “Why are you not doing things, while on company time, that are related to the city of San Diego, when the citizens of San Diego are paying your salary?”

Third . . . Is the San Diego City Attorney also an employee of city of San Diego? If so, then it appears that Ms. Elliott also works for us (the tax-payers of the city). When she is on company time, we, the tax-payers, are paying her salary. To her I ask, “Why are you not doing things that are related to the city’s affairs, when we are paying you?” To make this even more egregious this is not the first time that Ms. Elliott has “brought forth a proposal for San Diego to get involved in controversial cases elsewhere in the country” . . . while on company time.

Fourth . . . What makes this even more ludicrous is that this case is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in about six weeks. Does Ms. Elliott and the San Diego City Council really think that the judges on the Supreme Court are really going to let an amicus brief from the San Diego City Council influence their decision? Or is this merely a political stunt; a political stunt being done when they are supposed to be on the clock – working for the city?

Now, as one of the ‘San Diego tax-payer employers’ I say, “If the City Council and Ms. Elliott want to discuss matters and vote on things that do not relate to this city, please do it on your own time – not on company time!”

“They act differently in Sacramento – which is almost a fantasy camp . . .”
Practically all of us who do not look through the rose-colored glasses of the Democrats have known this for years. It is indeed a fantasy camp on so many levels that to attempt to elucidate them now would take forever and a day. What is unusual about this quote is that it was spoken by Christine Pelosi, who is the leader of the California Women’s Democratic Caucus. Yes, she works in California’s State Capitol. Does that last name sound familiar? (I wonder if she also says, “You have to pass the bill to know what’s in it” when she is busy churning out some of the ridiculous legislation that comes out of Sacramento?)
This quote from Ms. Pelosi was in response to a letter from more than 140 women, including legislators, senior legislative aides, and lobbyists, who work in Sacramento.
This letter contends that sexual misconduct by powerful men in Sacramento is “pervasive.”
Wait just a minute! Are those the same powerful men in Sacramento, who pass bills telling the citizens of California how to behave?                                    Could they be misbehaving?

This letter states, “Each of us has endured, or witnessed or worked with women who have experienced some form of dehumanizing behavior by men in power in our workplaces.” This certainly suggests that we have an iceberg here with plenty more beneath the surface – a problem that cannot be fixed by electric cars or by marking ‘X’ on our driver’s licenses in the gender box.

Since California’s legislature is “pervasive” with Democrats, let’s make a guess as to who is probably involved in most of this alleged misconduct in this so called, ‘fantasy camp.’ Oh I am sure that some Republicans are involved , but all of us know that if this were “a Republican issue”, it would have come out and been in the news long ago – probably a week or so before the last election.
Remarkably, Democrat Anthony Rendon, speaker of the state assembly, came out with this ludicrous statement: “This letter shows that sexual harassment is as prevalent in the Capitol as it is anywhere else in society.”                              Which society is he referring to . . . Hollywood? Which workplace, other than that of a Democratic politician is he familiar with? It is truly amazing that the higher ups are already laying the groundwork for sweeping all of this under the proverbial rug as in “no big deal as boys will be boys!” He doesn’t mention anything about a fantasy camp.
Perhaps, “Drain the swamp” should be updated in California to “DRAIN THE CAMP.”

BTW I wonder if Christine Pelosi has confided any of this to her mother in the past.

Section 8, a housing lottery, will reopen in L.A. this month.
This is the first time Section 8 will be opened since 2004, because there has not been enough federal funding. For the last eight years under a Democratic president there was not enough federal funding and now under President Trump, there is . . . so did I miss LA’s Mayor Garcetti thanking “Washington” for reopening Section 8? I don’t think so! In fact what Mr. Garcetti said was, “Washington should meet the urgency of this crisis and increase the number of people who can get help through Section 8.”

For those who are not familiar with Section 8, it is a rent subsidy given to low income families whose income is less that $36,050. Tenants pay 30% of their salary on rent ($900/ mo. for a salary of $36,000), and the Section 8 voucher pays the rest of the rent to the landlords in exchange for accepting low income renters as tenants. However now the problem is trying to find landlords that will accept the vouchers, and so the Housing Authority has started offering landlords incentives in the hope that the landlords will accept Section 8 tenants.

The estimate is that approximately 600,000 will sign up for the open 20,000 wait list Section 8 spots which are then assigned by lottery. Vouchers become available when someone who is receiving a voucher goes off the list. This happens when either when the income of a Section 8 recipient becomes too high to qualify (>$36,050) or when the voucher holder dies – both rare occurrences.
The rents in LA increased 5% last year, and there is no indication that this increase will be getting less anytime soon, and as the rents go up, the amount of the amount that the voucher pays must go up. Since the average rent of a 1 bedroom place in LA is $1380/mo. ($480/mo. potentially subsidized for someone who earns $36,000 per year, and $780/mo. potentially subsidized for someone earning $20,00 per year), and the average cost of a 2 bedroom rental in LA is $1740/mo. ($840 potentially subsidized for so one earning $36,000 per year and $1140/mo. potentially subsidized for someone earning $20,000 per year). This obviously amounts to a very large amount of dollars for subsidies every year – this before any further additional potential landlord incentives by the Housing Authority.

To qualify for a Section 8 rent subsidy, the applicant must work or live in LA. Incredibly there is nothing that says or even implies that the applicant must be a US citizen, and as many of us know, a high percentage of LA residents are not US citizens.

So let me get this straight, Mayor Garcetti wants the federal government to increase rent subsidies for people in LA, even though the recipients may not be US citizens! This is from a city and a state that have declared themselves to be “a sanctuary city and a sanctuary state.”
How do you spell, c-h-u-t-z-p-a ?

 

Believe it or not, but I am getting a bit bored and tired (zzzzz!) of talking about the NFL’s inept handling of the genuflectees, but the California legislature is on a break, so talking about the ineptitude of the Golden State is temporarily on hold.

Yesterday, one of my uber liberal hiking-group friends was bragging that he was not watching the NFL this year. I was dumbfounded as we have never agreed on anything before. How could this be? Well if your initial guess was that something was broken, you were kinda close. He was boycotting because of the danger of CTE. I knew better than to ask him about the “Kaepernick effect” and the genuflectees because I knew that he would back the genuflectees, as he tends to be for things that are idiotic, but not patriotic!
Speaking of CTE, which I think some of the genuflectees have, my new suggestion is for them to go on TV with their message, instead of shooting themselves in the foot with the National Anthem protests. I think that they should go on the late night talk shows with Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, both liberals. On these shows they could speak directly to the “I live I my parents basement” unemployed youths who do not have to get up early to go to work the next morning. This way the genuflectees could appeal directly to . . . zzzzz.

Or perhaps the genuflectees could go on ESPN with Jemele Hill (after she has served her suspension for her tweets). Another option is to go on with ESPN’s co-host of “Pardon the Interruption”, Mike Wilbon, who compared Jerry Jones to a slave holder for requiring the players to stand for the National Anthem. Unfortunately for Mr. Wilbon, he is making the same basic mistake as Gerald McCoy, who plays for the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Mr. McCoy was spouting off on the players 1st Amendment Rights.
However, in this situation the players are paid employees of the owner of the NFL team. Can you imagine a paid employee at McDonald’s or at Nordtrom’s insulting the paying customers with some political jibberish? Of course not, because insulting the customers is not a good business practice and the manager/owner could and should tell the employee how to behave . . . or else be fired. Colin Kaepernick should have been told at the beginning to behave himself. It was this non-discipline at the beginning that has mushroomed into the NFL’s Nielsen ratings for this year dropping by 7%, compared to last year, while the NFL home attendance has dropped by 18% compared to 2015 when Kaepernick started his shenanigans.

Now finally Roger Goodell (zzzzz!) is starting to wake up and engage his brain as to what is happening to his product, NFL football. He recently appeared to change his tune a bit as he suggested that “everyone should stand for the National Anthem” . . . but how will the genuflectees respond to this?! He then muttered some nonsense about we are all in this together. . . zzzzz!
Oops, Roger, so far, too little, too late! Maybe if the owners decided that Goodell’s salary should drop proportionate to the NFL’s TV ratings, he would quickly then see the true picture of what is happening.

Myself, I am looking forward to football this weekend . . . college football that is, with San Diego State hosting Boise State. Then on Sunday , first some personal genuflection and then . . . zzzzz!

Last week in raids in eight states and Washington D.C. 498 illegal immigrants from 42 countries were arrested. Of these only 181 did not have a prior criminal conviction. I presume that the rest were “bad hombres.”

Also last week an immigration sweep in the Bay Area resulted in the arrest of 27 illegals –  most with past criminal convictions. It certainly appears that if those arrested had a prior criminal conviction, that they were indeed “bad hombres.”

On 10/5/17 Governor Brown of California signed SB 54, making California a “sanctuary state”. SB 54 vastly limits who state and local law enforcement agencies can hold, question, and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities. This bill is viewed by many as an effort by Democrats to shield the 2.3 million undocumented individuals in California. Wow! 2.3 million!!  How many of these 2.3 million are “bad hombres?”  How many are “good hombres?” Just as important, how many of those 2.3 million hombres vote? Perhaps a topic for another day.

Anyone with a brain is aware that the Democrats have to look like they are doing something for their compadres – ergo SB54 . . . but “have the Democrats done it again?” In their fantasy world have the Democrats again done something which will do more harm than good for those individuals that they say they are trying to help?

Did they think that the federal government would just “roll over” because Governor Brown signed a piece of paper?

In response to the passage and the signing of SB54, Thomas Homan, one of the nation’s top immigration officials, said the following:

“Ultimately SB 54 helps shield removable aliens from immigration enforcement and creates another magnet for more illegal immigration – all at the expense of the safety and security of the very people it purports to protect.” He warned that there will be “no choice” but to arrest unauthorized immigrants in California neighborhoods and work sites, and that immigrants arrested in California are likely to be moved to out of state detention centers. This does not sound like “rolling over.”

Likewise San Diego Country Sheriff, Bill Gore, has concerns that jail deputies will no longer be able to notify authorities prior to the release of non-citizen inmates that are potential chronic troublemakers. He comments, “Instead of taking them into custody in the facility, they will be out in the neighborhoods.  It tends to make us less safe.” What communities will these “minor” (post SB54) “bad hombres” be returning to?  I would venture to guess that it will not be the neighborhoods that most of these Democratic State Congressmen and Governor Jerry Brown live in!

Doesn’t this seem a bit backward? The Democrats and Governor Brown as a result of SB54 are now trying to shield potential “bad hombres”, and the result may be that “good (but still illegal) hombres” will no longer be safe in their neighborhoods or at work! It seems logical to me that the “bad hombres” should be the first to go back to where they came from, but dem Dems apparently don’t think so!

One might ask, “Does the SB in SB54 actually stand for:                                                Save the Bad (Hombres) ?

 

My friend, Randy, happened to be at the Cleveland Indians vs. New York Yankees  ALCS baseball game last Thursday (10/5/17) in Cleveland. According to his first hand eye-witness report, the fans, irrespective if they were white, black, yellow, brown, or chartreuse, were extremely respectful at the singing of the National Anthem. Their hats were off and their hands were on their hearts as they stood to show respect for the country and the flag.                                      He said that it was awesome.

 

On Friday night (10/6/17) I did watch a football game – or perhaps I should say, “a futbol” game, USA vs. Panama, being played in Orlando, Fla. I had purposely tuned in before the start of the game to witness the National Anthem. The behavior of the players and of the fans was exemplary; again nothing but respect for our flag and our country.                                                                                         It was awesome.

 

On Sunday (10/8/17) I did watch a football game, but not a NFL game. I had recorded the San Diego State vs. UNLV game on Saturday night, and watched it on Sunday in order to get my football fix. This time there was a huge flag being held along its edges during the National Anthem.. It covered the entire field. As far as I could tell everyone on the field as well as everyone in the stands demonstrated nothing but respect – again black, white, brown, yellow, or mauve – all united. An African American military woman in uniform sang the National Anthem. It was very moving especially as the game was in Las Vegas and only a few miles from last week’s tragic massacre.                                                   It was awesome.

I did not watch the NFL on Sunday, as I am still boycotting the anti-flag and anti-National Anthem NFL. I had wondered if the NFL players would smarten up and realize that their adolescent behavior was really getting old. If they had any common sense they would realize that their behavior was having a drastic effect on the NFL viewing audience, and eventually this dramatic decrease in viewership would affect their individual paychecks. Sure enough, a poor excuse for a pro-NFL team, the San Francisco 49ers, again took a knee for the National Anthem before they lost again.  I personally wonder if some of these malcontent players already have CTE.

After the respect for the flag and the National Anthem that was shown at a variety of different sports venues (baseball games, soccer games, and college football games) over the past four days, the actions of those kneeling 49er players provided a striking and revealing contrast.

On Monday morning The Wall Street Journal featured a picture of Vice President Pence and his wife prior to the NFL game in Indianapolis between the Colts and the San Francisco 49ers. Keep in mind that Mike Pence is from Indiana and was there primarily for a tribute to Peyton Manning, an ex-Indianapolis Colts player. After the 49er players again protested during the National Anthem, Vice President Pence and his wife left. He later tweeted, “I left today’s Colts game because President Trump and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our solders, our flag, or our National Anthem.”

Was this a political stunt as the  Dems are implying?

If it was . . . it was awesome.

If it wasn’t . . . it was awesome.

BTW: Finally a NFL owner had the cojones to stand up to the genuflectees. Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, told his players that if they did not stand for the National Anthem, they would be benched. It’s about time! Every player on the Dallas Cowboys stood up! That was awesome!