When the 49ers beat Los Angeles at SoFi Stadium on January 9, 2022 the Rams House was packed with 49er fans in Red and Gold attire.
49er fans were such a presence at the Niners victory which propelled them into the playoffs that LA Rams management is now retaliating.
If the Rams can’t beat the Niners on the field (San Francisco has won six straight) LA ownership wants to ensure their team doesn’t lose in the stands, too.
San Francisco Chronicle 1.23.2022
You’ve heard about not counting your chickens before they hatch?
The Los Angeles Rams were banning ticket sales to 49ers fans before the Rams even knew if there’d be an NFC Championship Game next Sunday between the two teams.
An influx of 49er Faithful swarmed SoFi Stadium when the two teams faced off on Jan. 9, a game in which San Francisco scored a 27-24 upset and squeezed into the playoffs. Rams coach Sean McVay later told reporters that the team was surprised by just how many Niners fans had filled the stands.
Sunday morning, as the Rams prepared to play the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in what turned out to be a 30-27 victory for Los Angeles, fans looking to snag tickets to a possible 49ers-Rams title game at SoFi Stadium on Jan. 30 were hit with a notification that warned ticket sales “will be restricted to residents of the Greater Los Angeles region.”
The notification stated that ticket buyers’ residency will be based on the billing address for the credit card used to make the purchase, and “orders by residents outside of the Greater Los Angeles region will be canceled without notice and refunds given.
The unusual prohibition seemed to indicate that the club was trying to avoid a repeat of its regular-season finale against San Francisco when a large contingent of 49ers fans made the Rams feel like the visiting team — on their home turf.
49er Faithful at Rams House SoFi Stadium – January 9, 2022
Now, the two teams will meet for a third time this season. This time, the victor will get to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Every Picture Tells a Story – 49ers win in the Snow in frigid Green Bay Wisconsin.
San Francisco 49ers’ Robbie Gould celebrates after making the 45 yard game-winning field goal as time runs out.
Like an 11th-hour stay-of-execution phone call from the governor, Jimmy Garoppolo marched the 49ers to a game-winning 45-yard field goal as time expired for a shocking 13-10 victory over the mighty Packers. – Scott Ostler, San Francisco Chronicle.
GREEN BAY, Wis. — Robbie Gould’s kick sailed through the uprights and as his San Francisco teammates, bundled in red parkas, scampered onto the grass Saturday night, the Green Bay Packers just stood on their sideline. They had not lost all season at Lambeau Field, not in warm weather or temperate conditions or the winter chill, but a certain finality had now descended amid the snowfall.
Kicker Robbie Gould gets a lift after his 45-yard field goal as time expired sent the 49ers to the NFC Championship Game.Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The ChronicleYes. There were 49er fans in Green Bay
The 49ers ousted the top-seeded Packers from the playoffs, 13-10, on Gould’s 45-yard field goal as time expired. San Francisco, the sixth seed, advances to play at either the Los Angeles Rams or the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in next Sunday’s N.F.C. championship game.
San Francisco’s blocked punt late in the fourth quarter was returned for a touchdown. Dan Powers/The Post-Crescent, via Associated PressSan Francisco 49ers safety Talanoa Hufanga (29) recovers a fourth quarter blocked punt for a return touchdown at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wis.Quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo celebrates the 49ers’ victory
No sooner does a “progressive” District Attorney assume office than the political knives are unsheathed. It is becoming such a regular occurence in America that the reactionary forces of law and order and the politicians who support them will never acknowledge the old tough on crime lock ’em up school doesn’t work.
The list of “progressive” DAs under siege is disturbing. Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, George Gascon in Los Angeles and Alvin Bragg in Manhattan are just four DAs who have come under vicious attack since the moment they assumed office.
The voters either fail to see through or choose to believe this toxic fog of law and order rhetoric.
It’s not the District Attorneys who need to be called to account. It is the entire American system which keeps marginalized people in poverty. It is the lack of oppportunity for many Americans. It is the glorification of violence through the media. It is the American system which makes guns available to virtually every citizen.
It’s a systemic American problem which has corroded the entire social fabric of this country.
Excerpted from New York – Intelligencer 1.21.2022
Alvin Bragg, the newly elected Manhattan district attorney, is being attacked on an almost daily basis for doing exactly what he promised voters: moving away from using arrest, prosecution, and jail (or the threat of it) as the primary, default strategy for dealing with low-level crimes and disorder.
The New York Post on The Nightcrawler beat
It’s a painful but necessary dispute. If Bragg doesn’t buckle, and if the current surge in street crime recedes, New York could move closer to the holy grail of becoming safer and more fair at the same time.
For months on the campaign trail, Bragg told voters — at candidate forums, in debates, and in televised interviews — that on day one of his administration, he would issue a memo instructing the hundreds of prosecutors in the DA’s office to avoid seeking jail time for offenses like fare-beating, shoplifting, soliciting prostitution, possession of small quantities of weed, and the always handy catchall of disorderly conduct.
The general idea, championed by Bragg and a number of so-called “progressive prosecutors” around the country, is to clear the docket of court-clogging lower-level offenses, thereby freeing up police and prosecutors to focus on serious problems like gang activity, gun trafficking, and domestic violence.
Bragg also promised to make minor but important changes to how certain crimes were charged. Resisting arrest, he promised, would have to be tied to an actual arrest, not prosecuted as a stand-alone offense. (Think about it: If a person isn’t being arrested, why prosecute them for resisting that non-arrest?)
New Manhattan DA meets the public and above being sworn into office January 2022
More controversially, Bragg believes that not all crimes involving a gun should be treated the same. That stance stems from a case, which Bragg frequently mentioned on the campaign trail, involving his brother-in-law, who as a college student got into a fistfight. “No weapons were drawn. Unlike the policing of white students in these instances, he and all of his friends involved in the fistfight were arrested,” Bragg recounted on his campaign website. “Upon arrest, it was discovered that one of the boys had a gun, and ALL of the boys were charged with possessing the gun.”
Bragg’s arguments and his calm, earnest demeanor — along with the solid turnout of voters in his native Harlem — carried him to victory in the primary and general elections. And shortly after being sworn in, he issued the promised memo.
At which point all hell broke loose.
The New York Post dedicated no fewer than five cover stories to screaming headlines and scathing editorials. “You’ve ordered your prosecutors to stop seeking prison sentences for nearly all crimes, and to charge many felonies as mere misdemeanors. That’s giving criminals the green light, plain and simple,” the tabloid’s editorial board wrote.
The situation in Ukraine is growing increasing perilous. Most Americans are not tuned in to this rapidly escalating crisis. They should.
Excerpted from The Moscow Times 1.20.2022
The United States and its allies Thursday warned Moscow of grave consequences if “any” of the tens of thousands of troops massed on the border were to cross the border into Ukraine.
“We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations. Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote on Twitter.
Hours before Secretary of State Anthony Blinken arrived in Berlin to coordinate the possible response to Russia, President Biden sparked controversy as he appeared to indicate that a “minor incursion” might prompt a smaller reaction from NATO allies.
“It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera,” he said.
Following talks in Berlin with Germany, France, and Britain, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken underlined that Russia “cannot match” Western powers’ resoluteness.
Allowing Russia to violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity would “drag us all back to a much more dangerous and unstable time, when this continent, and this city, were divided in two… with the threat of all-out war hanging over everyone’s heads,” he said in the German capital.
In a show of that unity, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, speaking alongside Blinken, said the West would not shy away from taking action even if that included measures that “could have economic consequences for ourselves.”
Fears are mounting that a major conflict could break out in Europe, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson cautioned that Russia marching on Ukraine would have repercussions beyond the continent. “It would be a disaster for the world,” he said.
An invasion which resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians. The Russians finally repelled the Nazi Germany invasion and proceeded to march onto Berlin at the end of World War II in 1945.
Nazi Germany’s invasion of Russia and its aftermath resulted in the division of Germany into East and West, the partition of Berlin, the creation of satellite States beholden to Russia and the Cold War between East and West which lasted over 40 years.
Many Germans know full well the price both countries paid for the Nazi invasion of Russia. This is why Germans today still believe, “The idea that Germany delivers weapons that could then be used to kill Russians is very difficult to stomach for many Germans,”
Excerpted from Deutsche Welle 1.19.2022
Both the United States and the United Kingdom have announced arms deliveries to Ukrkaine, mostly handguns, ammunition and anti-tank weapons. A group of US senators visiting Ukraine earlier this week promised more weapons would be on the way.
German government officials have expressed concern that such deliveries could push tensions higher and make negotiations more difficult.
In their coalition agreement, the center-left SPD, the Greens and the neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP) agreed on a restrictive arms export policy that does not allow any weapons deliveries to crisis regions.
German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock said her government’s decision on weapons had a historical dimension — a reference to Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union during the Second World War.
“The idea that Germany delivers weapons that could then be used to kill Russians is very difficult to stomach for many Germans,” Marcel Dirsus, a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University (ISPK), told DW.
It hasn’t taken long to put the new German government’s talk of a bolder and more values-based foreign policy to the test. After just six weeks in power, it finds itself confronted by Russia’s military moves against Ukraine, which fears another attack from its bigger and more powerful neighbor.
Germany and its allies are struggling to agree on a response to Russia’s unclear intentions. German policymakers, including within the three-party coalition government, are also debating among themselves.
On Tuesday, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, of the Social Democrats (SPD), said Russia would pay a “high price” in the event of an invasion of Ukraine. On Wednesday, Scholz reiterated that silence on the issue of Ukraine was not an option. His foreign minister, the Greens’ Annalena Baerbock, has made similar expressions of solidarity with Ukraine but rejected its latest request for weapons deliveries.
“We are prepared to have a serious dialogue with Russia to defuse the highly dangerous situation right now because diplomacy is the only viable way,” Baerbock told reporters on Monday during a visit to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.
Russian soldiers display captured Nazi Germany flag
The shocking push to give cops more power and turn San Francisco into the Surveillance State just got another push from our Law and Order Mayor.
London Breed will be placing a measure on the upcoming ballot which would open the doors to more police surveillance of San Francisco citizens. Breed is pandering to fear and paranoia as she continues her Police State crusade.
San Francisco voters must turn back this continuing official assault on its civil rights.
Excerpted from San Francisco Chronicle 1.18.2022
Mayor London Breed on Tuesday filed a ballot measure that will ask San Franciscans to expand and clarify the circumstances under which police can monitor surveillance cameras in real time, advancing a key element of her plan to crack down on crime in the Tenderloin and citywide.
Saira Hussain, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation — a San Francisco-based nonprofit that focuses on privacy protections — said she believes the proposal was “poorly drafted, and introduces a loophole large enough to render the surveillance technology ordinance meaningless.”
Mayor Breed joins Big Brother – “Exigency can mean almost anything.”
“The ordinance as it stands allows for exigency when there is a danger to life or serious physical harm to a person,” Hussain said. “What the mayor’s proposal tries to do is expand that to the point (that) basically exigency can mean almost anything.” The measure is twofold: One portion seeks to broaden the instances in which police can access live feeds, adding certain property crimes like organized retail theft, looting and rioting to a list of “critical events” that qualify. Current law, under a 2019 ordinance on that limits city use of surveillance technology, states that only emergencies that involve danger of death or serious injury can bypass an approval process with the Board of Supervisors.
The second portion would allow police camera access in “public safety crisis areas,” which would include spaces known for open-air drug markets or where there has been a documented spike in violent crimes. The measure involves privately owned security cameras placed throughout the city.
Mayor Breed’s playbook
“The criminal activity at issue is not victimless,” Breed said in a statement. “We are talking about violent crimes, including property crimes that are being perpetrated more frequently with the use of guns, getaway vehicles, and other weapons that can seriously injure or even kill innocent bystanders.”
The mayor’s ballot measure has already drawn scrutiny from privacy advocates and supporters of the 2019 surveillance technology ordinance.
It is shocking to watch the news reports that the British Parliament is considering a series of harsh laws to limit the right of free speech. For now the effort by the Conservative government of Boris Johnson has come to a halt. The House of Commons was ready to pass the legislation.
Fortunately reason prevailed in the House of Lords. At least temporarily. The goverment argued these harsh measures are necessary to preserve “the rights and freedom of the law abiding majority” and vows to keep pushing.
This is a free speech issue which needs close monitoring and scrutiny.
Excerpted from The Guardian 1.18.2022
Controversial measures including police powers to stop noisy protests could be brought back to the Commons by the government after a series of late-night defeats in the House of Lords, the justice secretary, Dominic Raab, has said.
The Labour frontbencher Richard Rosser said the “sweeping, significant and further controversial powers” had not been considered by the Commons and called it an “outrageous way to legislate”.
Rosser said: “We cannot support any of these last-minute, rushed and ill-thought-through broad powers… … with the exception of approving the increased sentences for wilfully obstructing motorways and major roads.”
The independent crossbencher and prominent QC Alex Carlile, who served previously as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: “The dilution of without-suspicion stop and search powers is a menacing and dangerous measure.”
Brian Paddick, a Liberal Democrat peer who was a deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police, said: “If the government is determined to bring in these draconian, anti-democratic laws, reminiscent of cold war eastern bloc police states, they should withdraw them now and introduce them as a separate bill to allow the democratically elected house time to properly consider them.”
Lord Paddick added: “The anti-protest measures in the original bill were dreadful. These measures and the way they have been introduced are outrageous.”
Peers rejected a series of measures in the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill that were proposed in response to activist movements such as Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion. The bill will return to the Commons for MPs to decide whether to accept the changes.
The House of Parliament gets carried away with its dranconian measures
Proposed powers that were voted down included allowing police officers to stop and search anyone at a protest “without suspicion” for items used to prevent a person being moved, known as “locking-on”.
A move that would allow individuals with a history of causing serious disruption to be banned by the courts from attending certain protests was also dismissed, along with a proposal to make it an offence for a person to disrupt the operation of key national infrastructure, including airports and newspaper printers.
In a separate defeat, peers backed restricting the imposition of tougher sentences for blocking a highway to major routes and motorways rather than all roads.
Asked if any measures would be reintroduced through the Commons, the justice secretary told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We’ll look very carefully at all of that, but, yes, absolutely.
“In relation to noise, of course we support the right to peaceful and rambunctious protest, but it cannot be allowed to interfere with the lives of the law-abiding majority.”
Rejection of the Conservative government’s plans sets the stage for a protracted “ping-pong” parliamentary tussle, whereby legislation passes between the Lords and the Commons until agreement can be reached.
Peers were strongly critical of not only the measures, but also the way they had been introduced at such a late stage of the passage of the bill, after it had already gone through the elected house.
Earlier, the Lords also defeated other contentious curbs on demonstrations proposed in the legislation, including powers to impose conditions on protests judged to be too noisy.
Stressing the need for the protest measures, the Home Office minister Susan Williams argued they were “vitally important in protecting the country from the highly disruptive tactics employed by a small number of people”.
Lady Williams said: “The rights to freedom of speech and assembly are a cornerstone of our democracy and this government will not shrink from defending them.
“But a responsible government, one that stands up for the rule of law, must also defend the rights and freedom of the law-abiding majority.”
The San Francisco media is reporting about the hard fought nail biting victory of the 49ers against Dallas.
I want to provide a different perspective about how things look from the perspective of the Lone Star State fandom. It’s obvious this loss hurts and will have ramifications deep in the heart of Texas football.
Excerpted from SB Nation 1.16.2022
The Dallas Cowboys lost on Sunday. Losing only six times since September sounds like a deal we would sign up for, but knowing that it would all end on a loss is a bitter pill to swallow. This season was supposed to be different for the Cowboys – it was different at times – yet it all ended in the same way that it always has for the better part of three decades.
Much is being said about the final play of the game when QB Zak Prescott was trying to spike the ball after running a quarterback draw with little time remaining and no clock stoppages left. For what it’s worth Prescott said that the team has practiced it many times and that they were prepared to trust their training.
Official rushes in as time runs out on Dallas Cowboys season
Perhaps what is most frustrating about Dallas failing, yet again, to deliver in the postseason is that, unlike previous years, they are not even able to come to terms with it themselves.
Sunday evening saw Dak Prescott take to the podium following a Cowboys game like many times before but in this instance QB1 approached things very differently.
When asked about the state of the game Prescott chose to partly blame the officials.
Obviously officials aren’t perfect, but the Cowboys were at fault on Sunday and hardly some sort of victim. Fans were displeased with the way that the game ended and chose to throw debris at officials as they ran off of the field which was an ugly thing to see. Prescott was asked about the debris flying and mistakenly thought that fans were throwing things at players. When he was corrected in that things were being thrown at officials he said “a credit to them” talking about the fans doing the throwing.
Ever since being drafted by the Cowboys in 2016 we have seen Dak only say and do the right thing as far as when he is in the public space. For him to openly endorse fans throwing debris at officials because they did not like the calls that they made is poor judgment by Prescott.
The look on this Cowboys fan says it all, “It’s gonna be over….that’s the end of the game.”
Sunday was really disappointing in that the Cowboys completely collapsed as a football team. Seeing them point fingers and blame officiating in the aftermath only solidified some of our worst fears in that they don’t believe they were in the wrong in any real way.
It’s difficult to get a balanced perspective on what is happening in Ukraine.
What’s available to American audiences is a decidedly anti-Russia spin. The main diet being American networks and newspapers along with the BBC and Deutsche Welle.
It’s fair to remind oneself that since the collapse of the Soviet dominated regimes in Eastern Europe many countries have joined NATO and are pressing up against Russia. In fact four former Soviet satellite nations; Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania all border on Ukraine. The Russians have always maintained that Ukraine is a part of Russia. This slow encroachment of NATO near what it feels to be its territory is one reason this tinderbox is smoldering.
Excerpted from Wikipedia
A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party.
The term “false flag” originated in the 16th century as a purely figurative expression to mean “a deliberate misrepresentation of someone’s affiliation or motives”.[1]
The term today extends to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression.[6]
Russia has put in place operatives trained in explosives to carry out a “false-flag” operation to create a pretext to invade Ukraine, U.S. officials alleged Friday.
The United States released intelligence findings the day after National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said that Russia, which has amassed tens of thousands of troops on the Ukrainian border, was “laying the groundwork to have the option of fabricating a pretext for an invasion.”
NATO members in shades of green. Several former Soviet bloc nations are now members of NATO and border on Ukraine
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said U.S. intelligence believed Russia could begin the operations “several weeks” before a military invasion, which could start between mid-January and mid-February.
“We have information that indicates Russia has already prepositioned a group of operatives to conduct a false-flag operation in eastern Ukraine,” Psaki told reporters.
“The operatives are trained in urban warfare and in using explosives to carry out acts of sabotage against Russia’s own proxy forces.”
Russia quickly denied the account, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov calling the U.S. statements “unfounded.”
But Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the intelligence was “very credible” and that the classification had been downgraded to allow its release to the public.
He said that Russian operatives could include intelligence agents, military elements and other security services.
“They often hybridize their personnel to such a degree that the lines are not necessarily really clear,” Kirby told reporters.
At first glance Yellowstone may appear to be another “conservative” modern day western drama.
To sit through the four seasons of this riveting violent family drama will leave the discerning viewer with a different take on the Yellowstone story.
Excerpted from The Guardian 1.13.2022
Yellowstone, a violent drama about familial legacy and the tides of changes in the mountains of Montana, is the most-watched show on cable in the US, though depending on where you live, you might not know it.
The Paramount Network drama starring Kevin Costner as the stony, scheming owner of the largest contiguous ranch in the US drew over 11 million people for its fourth season finale earlier this month without streaming, ratings not seen since the heyday of such 2010s staples as Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, which were both broadly popular and critically feted.
Yet despite batting in the same league as Thrones and The Walking Dead without a clear streaming outlet (full seasons were licensed to NBC’s Peacock, while new episodes land on CBS’s nascent streaming network Paramount+), Yellowstone doesn’t court the critical attention or media scrutiny as its ratings predecessors. Co-creator Taylor Sheridan (who also serves as head writer and occasional director) has drawn accolades for gritty neo-westerns such as Sicario, Hell or High Water and Wind River, but Yellowstone, which premiered in 2018, has been ignored by awards shows. (It received its first major nomination, a 2022 Screen Actors Guild nod for best ensemble in a drama, on Wednesday.)
Culture websites such as Vulture and the Ringer publish episode-by-episode recaps, but there’s not nearly the essays, media Twitter chatter or substantive analyses of, say, HBO’s Succession, the buzzy and bruising portrait of a media conglomerate family which parallels Yellowstone’s thematic frame – mega-wealth, squabbling siblings, a family guarding its assets – and offers a stark contrast to its lack of critical attention.
Streaming was supposed to be the great equalizer, for either access to content (see: global megahits like Netflix’s Squid Game, the South Korean dystopian drama which reached a whopping 111m households worldwide in late 2021) or its segmentation into competitive platforms warring for their niche and slice of IP.
Yellowstone presents a fascinating rebuke to these trends: a word-of-mouth hit in the heartland, for lack of a better term for the loose but distinct geographical segmentation in the US, and a phenomenon of cultural silos between urban-skewing consumers of premium cable and ex-urban (smaller cities surrounded by agricultural land, suburbs, small towns, rural communities) consumers of basic cable.
Paramount is building a popular universe around the success of Yellowstone – the prequel 1883, starring the country super couple Tim McGraw and Faith Hill as well as Sam Elliott, scored the biggest debut for a cable show since 2015 in December – and a good portion of the country hasn’t noticed.
Lee's Perspective 