Mike Rowe is not middle ground politically speaking. He is and always has been a conservative. Not the stupid Trumpian stupid faux conservative but an old time conservative.
As a music pro of over 40 years, I've seen my share of 'child prodigies'. Most of them present as precision-tailored "wind-up dolls," who astound audiences with their well-drilled parlor tricks, then flame out in their early twenties- when they can't give the public something new.
But then, there are a scant few who show the kind of aesthetic, intellectual and soulful instincts/skills that transcend what we are conditioned to expect from Wunderkind.
This kid is giving 'Mozart energy'... in a tight Jazz combo setting. You can see him here- working his way through his own cover of the most demanding Jazz standard ever written: "Giant Steps"... by the incomparable John Coltrane.
Oh man if Stefanskis Super Computer is getting reps...thats not a good sign at all. Andrew Berry 7 years in , despite all his ineptness at trying solve The QB room ...still has a job . Its so laughable. This team is headed toward another 4th place finish And Haslam keeps on cashing all those season ticket holders checks . This is worst QB room Monken has had to work with in his coaching career. He has to take a Swansons TV dinner and turn into Cracker Barrell. Good luck .
Here, I'll make this easier, so you don't have to play the kill the messenger, rando, cherry-picking-extremist vibe.
Do you find it troublesome that Newsom (or any D) is willing to back and campaign for "socialists" that want to:
Dismantle capitalism End free markets End representative government Eliminate property rights Eliminate borders Defund police Eliminate prisons Rewrite the Constitution Abolish the Senate Abolish the Presidency
???
Also, (and this is one of the biggest reasons I shared his posts) do you find it troublesome (or at least desperately immature) that anyone that complains about any democratic office holder, candidate or policy is automatically an "Ultra-MAGA Trumpster"?
So... Newsom... is just playing politics. Yep, totally harmless.
Row, however... is "stacking the deck with an agenda".
Welp, I guess everyone is welcome to their opinion.
No interest in reading the second entry, I take it?
Good enough.
Newsome is a politician - he is going to play politics. Name me a Republican or a Democrat that doesn't or wouldn't.
You presented Row as something above and beyond politics - I disagreed. I didn't try to act like it is worse or better than Newsome playing politics. Just saying I don't see his post a shining light of neutrality and impartiality. I see a carefully crafted and loaded post.
I started reading the second post - he's cherry picking what some people said in response to his post, and he he'd countered those and and framing it in a way to show he's right and they were wrong (and no doubt in every example he picked he was right). Again smart - but not overly impressive to me. You or Memphis or Bull could cherry pick some of the dumbest posts by 'lefties' on Dawgtalkers and create a long essay about "what the left are saying" and highlight how wrong and stupid those comments are/were. It would not mean that's the overwhelming sentiment by Democrats or left leaning centrists. There's dumb and extreme people on both sides (all sides) picking the dumbest and debating with them publicly, or posting videos of them - and very often trying to present them as evidence of what "the other side are all like" ... is not helpful.
I feel you in that regard. But at the same time I try to keep my expectations realistic. Some seem to see the glass as half full. Some seem to see it as half empty. I see it as simply a half of a glass.
It helps me greatly that I'm not as obsessed with this team as I used to be. Time seems to have had that effect on me. The only one that was allowing me to experience such disappointment and agony on an annual basis was myself.
I am in my mid 60s, been a Browns fan since 1969. I don't care who starts. I just want to see them in a SB. When I was younger the Browns were on my mind all the time. I remember in one of my school English classes we had to keep a journal. 90% of mine was how many yards Greg Pruitt had that week. I am too tired of waiting for the perfect combination of players. I'll even take wins where the ball bounces funny and we get lucky. I don't care if we play every team with 9 or 10 starters out. I am tired of "wait until next year" or "let's lose the last 2 so we have better draft position".
But these comments just show he has been convinced that trying to re-direct our tax dollars back to every day Americans rather than the military industrial complex, lobbyists, corporations and special interest is somehow a communist plot. I don't agree with some of the DSA policies either. Just like I don't agree with the Republicans policies or the Democrat establishment policies on some issues.
Trying to paint some faux portrayal this like it's a good verses evil battle is hilarious.
I read the first missive - reading between the lines, I wouldn't say he's neutral or fair and balanced, he has an agenda he is trying to stack the deck with. He's doing what Rush used to pretend to do and take a common sense issue and then extrapolate from that hypothesis which is speculation but because the start of the conversation was based on something fairly common sense some people go along for the ride and assume he's still on fact based observation as opposed to a viewpoint heavily jaundiced by his political lens. I say that because this bit is nonsense:
""I understand how unpopular President Trump is in the eyes of many. But if the DSA continues to grow in popularity, and the Democrats actually campaign on their behalf, I think it’ll be the largest political blunder in my lifetime. Unless of course, I’m wrong, and the DSA expands to swallow the Democratic Party, and communism winds up on the ballot.""
Right or wrong Newsome didn't campaign on their behalf, he's playing politics and trying not to alienate them. It may end up being a mistake - but it's also politically understandable. The Tea Party movement wasn't alienated by the Republicans ... it was embraced and that analogy seems more appropriate than others (to me) .... And finally there is zero chance that the DSA swallows the Democratic Party, that's such nonsense.
I could be wrong ... I might be being overly harsh. IDK. And if others like him that's fine - up to you not me.
Communism is not what the American people want - no matter if there is a lot of attention on a small number of people from a small organization .... They may be on a lot of ballots - they may get some votes .... talk to me when they have some power and win elections.Â
I love Mike Rowe. He's fundamentally common-sense, fundamentally middle-ground, fundamentally these are the things you can do to be a good person, father, worker, that will keep a great country great. Besides that he is very well-spoken and very entertaining.
I know this isn't an easy read, but I promise you it's worth it. This is why "DSA" is trending. It's not because right-wing loudmouths are trying to create a narrative, it's because the narrative creates itself. And too many on the left just want to dance around it like it's nothing and scream "Truuummp!!" in the face of anyone that raises an objection. You have a slew of "Democrats" spewing communist ideals... not socialist, communist... and people like Gavin Newsom saying they deserve your support.
Here's two back-to-back posts from Mike. The second is in response to the tremendous backlash he got to the first.
Facebook Mike Rowe
A͏u͏g͏u͏s͏t͏ ͏2͏ ͏a͏t͏ ͏2͏:͏1͏3͏ ͏P͏M͏ · I'm not what you'd call a keen observer of the political climate in our country, but I do pay attention, broadly, to what's going on within our two parties. Watching the latest from Bill Maher, I was reminded of how we struggle to reconcile our support for an idea we might like, if it’s promoted by a politician we hate. And vice versa. Here though, we have an opportunity - Democrats, in particular - to speak out loudly and clearly against an ideology that has been proven, demonstrably, to be a really bad idea.
It’s alarming to see how quickly communism has been embraced by so many, but it's even more alarming, to see how many have yet to condemn it, in favor of sheltering under a “big tent.” This week, Gavin Newsom dismissed concerns over Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and progressive candidates winning key primaries, stating he would gladly campaign for them. He argued that the party must be in the "addition, not subtraction business" to retake control of Congress.
Not that anyone asked me, but…wow. The candidates that Newsom is referring to here are not subtle. They have clearly articulated precisely what they want, and exactly what they will try to accomplish if they gain power. No borders. No police. No prisons. No Senate. From each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities, and so forth. They are literally quoting Karl Marx, and they are literally on the record as desiring to completely dismantle our government and replace it with actual communism. And the Governor of California says he will campaign on their behalf, if doing so will result in a Congressional win. Truly amazing.
Seems to me, that this is best opportunity Democrats will ever have to make some kind of reasonable appeal to Independents, and those not on board with this administration. This is a chance to affirmatively distance themselves from an ideology that has caused more human suffering than any other scheme dreamt up by man. And yet, they have not.
I understand how unpopular President Trump is in the eyes of many. But if the DSA continues to grow in popularity, and the Democrats actually campaign on their behalf, I think it’ll be the largest political blunder in my lifetime. Unless of course, I’m wrong, and the DSA expands to swallow the Democratic Party, and communism winds up on the ballot. In which case, Ronald Reagan’s warning will haunt us all.
“Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.”
14h͏ · Not the way I planned on spending my afternoon, but 7,600 comments should not be ignored! Bots, trolls and personal attacks notwithstanding, the critics of yesterday’s post were dominated by a large and vocal contingent who rushed to remind me that there’s “a difference between socialism and communism,” an obvious indication that they didn’t actually read the post.
Shelley Armour writes… “Mike! You know there is a difference between democratic socialism and communism, right?”
Hi, Shelley. Yes, I know there’s a difference, and I understand what the difference is. The larger point, and the fundamental flaw with your comment, is that you seem to believe the candidates within the Democratic Socialist Party are both “democratic and socialist" simply because that’s the name of their club. Well, maybe some of them are. I really couldn’t say. What I can tell you for sure is that more than a few have called for the complete dismantling of capitalism, free markets, representative government, property rights, borders, police, prisons, and the Constitution in general. My post referred to them, as well as a number of elected Democrats who have agreed to campaign on their behalf – including Gavin Newsom, who said, "The Democratic Party must accept the DSA in order to take back the Congress.” His words, not mine.
Tracey Steele writes…“Wow! I cannot believe Mike Rowe said this. He has a huge reach, and he is actually spouting the word “communism” like it’s the 1950s! Wow Wow Wow!”
Wow indeed, Tracey, and thanks for noticing the size of my reach! (Contrary to popular belief, size does matter!) To say it again, I am not the one “spouting” communism or conflating socialists and communists. The word is being “spouted” by members of the DSA who are using it to describe themselves. I am not accusing them; I am quoting them.
John Engles… Hey Rowe, what’s the difference between the Communists who want to run the country and the Nazi/fascist who currently is?
Several differences, John, but the only one relevant to this conversation is the fact that the communists currently running for office have clearly identified themselves as such. They do not dispute or reject the label. They embrace it. It is who they are, who they claim to be, and who they want to be. The president, on the other hand, has never claimed to be a Nazi or a fascist. That doesn’t mean he isn't, but it is worth noting he has rejected the accusation outright. Obviously, you are entitled to that opinion and the right to share it publicly, thanks to our Constitution. Unlike in a fascist, Nazi, or communist regime. (Also worth noting, Nazis and fascists are not the same thing.)
Chris Tomaloff writes… “Kinda like how the political right didn’t shout down the extreme rhetoric coming from their candidates?”
No, Chris, not like that at all. In the video I shared, we saw examples of prominent Democrats saying things like, “We need to elect more communists!” (Cea Weaver, Director of the NYC Mayor’s Office.) Mamdani himself literally tweeted, "Each according to their need, each according to their ability." That’s a direct quote from the Communist Manifesto.
But what exactly is the corollary from the right? Are prominent Republicans tweeting, “We need to elect more Nazis! We need to elect more fascists! Eat the poor!” I don’t think so. John Engles may think Trump is fascist and a Nazi, but Trump disagrees, and so do a majority of voters. Communists, on the other hand, say it loud and say it proud. I’m inclined to take them at their word.
Beto Ojeda… “Mike has always leaned to the Trumpian view of things but never states it, so as not to alienate anyone, but we know how to read between the lines. This “communist” talk is McCarthyism 2.0.”
I wasn’t around in the 1950s, Beto, but from what I’ve read, it was indeed a very difficult time to be a communist in this country. Lots of private citizens were dragged before Congress, made to take “loyalty oaths," and blacklisted in their places of work. I can’t justify it or condone it, but I can explain it. We had just fought a hot war against fascism and Nazism and just begun a Cold War against a communist regime. The existence of an organized Communist Party in this country at such a time strained the limits of tolerance. But do you really think we’re less tolerant today than we were seventy-five years ago? Do you really believe my comments about communists who claim to be communists are synonymous with another Red Scare? If you haven’t noticed, Chris, no one in the DSA, including the communists, is being dragged before Congress and made to swear a loyalty oath to the Constitution. Today, a communist in America can run for office…with the endorsement of the governor of California! And the tacit approval of a major political party! Seems to me we’re about as far from McCarthyism as we can get.
As for my desire not to alienate anyone, I suppose I am guilty of that. I run a foundation that is open to people of all political beliefs, and we’ve assisted lots of Americans who lean to the left. I also know for a fact that many Democrats have supported mikeroweWORKS historically, and I have no desire to run them off. But do you really have to “read between the lines” to understand where I’m coming from?
True, I’ve never endorsed a candidate or publicly encouraged people to vote. But I’ve been very transparent about the fact that I’m a registered Independent who favors policies and programs that often align with conservative principles. Obviously, I would not characterize those conservative principles as “Trumpian,” because a) they were around long before him, b) Trump is not a conservative, and c) I do not agree with or support everything the President says and does. So, is it possible, Beto, that your accusation is rooted in the fact that I have never publicly denounced the president to your satisfaction? Is it possible you think I'm a Trumper, simply because I've never called him a fascist, or a Nazi, or a liar, or a conman, or a traitor, or whatever else you believe him to be?
Gretchen Seipp… Mike, the fact that you still act as though you’re not political after all this time is a bit ridiculous. I still support your work and foundation because I believe in it, but the folksy act has worn thin.
Aw, shucks, Gretchen. Folksy? Lil' ole me? Honestly, how am I acting as if I am “not political?” This entire conversation is the very definition of “political.”
Christopher Pugh… I would have voted for Mike Rowe and Freddie a few years ago before he went full-on MAGA, and I’m all in favor of his project, but it’s pretty clear the political direction that he’s moved in and the money trail that has influenced it.
It’s Freddy, not Freddie. (I don’t much care, but he’s a terrier and particular about such things.) As for the “full-on MAGA” moniker, is there something I did specifically to earn that designation? Is there some kind of general definition you can share? Or, are you coming from the same place as Beto? Is calling me “Full-On MAGA" your way of saying that I’ve failed to condemn Trump to your satisfaction? For the record, MRW is supported by liberals and conservatives alike. I have no idea what “money trail” you are referring to. Also, regarding my personal politics, think about the implications of what I wrote. I said that the Democrats have been given a gift – an opportunity to appear reasonable by doing something that 80% of the country would support. All they have to do is distance themselves from candidates who have called for the complete dismantlement of our Constitution. All they have to do is say, “Hold on, comrade. Our tent is not that big. We respect your right to hate America, but we don’t want you in our party, and we will not support your candidacy.”
If they say that, I think a lot of Independents would see them as they see John Fetterman, who has, in the eyes of many voters, become the most “rational” Democrat currently in office. If they don’t – if they actually welcome communist candidates into their party – then I’m afraid the Democrats, by default, will offer the American people a very simple choice in November – a party that disavows communism vs. a party that doesn’t. I think such a choice would be very positive for Republicans because I don’t think most Americans want to align themselves with a Democratic Party that welcomes communists. The question for you, Chris, is why would a “Full-On MAGA” like me encourage Democrats to act in a way that would disadvantage the Republican Party? And the answer is simple – it’s because I support the existence of a Democratic Party that believes America is still a fundamentally good place.
I think there’s a lot of room for improvement in our country, and I believe the best way to realize those improvements is for Democrats and Republicans to have continuous, robust and public debate about all the issues. But if one of those parties is affirmatively determined to transform our democratic republic into a communist state, then we’re no longer debating the various ways to make our country better; we’re debating the merits of destroying it. And really, what’s the point of tolerating that?
America is already a big tent, filled with hundreds of millions of people with wildly differing views and lots of political parties that represent those views. We’ve got the Green Party, the American Freedom Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Constitution Party, and of course, the Communist Party USA, as well as the Democratic Socialist Party. America’s tent is so big, we can even tolerate fringe parties like the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and so forth. Why then, does Gavin Newsom want to make room in the Democratic tent for socialists and communists? There’s only one reason, and he’s already spelled it out for us – he believes the Democrats need them to win back the Congress. I think it’s a bad bet for the Democrats and for America. And if a prominent Republican reached out to the KKK with the same “big tent” offer, you’d better believe my vote would be in play.
Michael Tillman… When are you going to throw your hat into the ring, Mr. Rowe?
Trump Admin Now Crowdsourcing for “Creative” Ideas on Iran
The Defense Department is out of options—and reaching out to others for suggestions on what to do next about Iran.
The Trump administration is running out of ways to pressure Iran, with its airstrikes failing to end Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz or force the country back to the negotiating table. So now the military is asking for “unconventional” new ideas.
CNN reports that an officer in the U.S. Central Command’s intelligence branch sent a message Wednesday to military analysts “looking for new creative and unconventional ways to pressure and punish Iran.” It’s an unusual thing to ask over email, according to CNN, and shows that President Trump knows his options are limited as the war with Iran enters its sixth month.
The email was sent before Trump threatened new airstrikes against Iran and then relented, over the weekend, after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other Gulf leaders talked him out of it. Among the plans were attacking Pickaxe Mountain and other Iranian sites reportedly housing nuclear equipment or material.
Those sites are deep underground, however, and would have likely required deploying American ground troops, which Trump is trying to avoid. Eighteen American service members have been killed in the war, according to official counts, and the administration has been criticized for its lack of transparency on military casualties.
“At the end of the day, POTUS will want a deal, so he’ll continually look for ways to get tough and get out of this,” an unnamed source told CNN. “You need creative minds at times—especially if you’re running out of conventional options.”
But more bombing probably won’t change Iran’s negotiating position, according to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency. Trump has effectively backed himself into a corner with his ill-advised war, and is having trouble with being able to walk away with anything he can call a victory. American missile stockpiles have dwindled, scores of civilians have been killed, and the global economy, including gas prices, has taken a massive hit. Trump needs a way out.
Just a reminder of the shake up and dismissal of some top military minds since Trump's second term began.....
Gen. C.Q. Brown Jr.: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Gen. Randy George: Army Chief of Staff
Adm. Lisa Franchetti: Chief of Naval Operations (the first woman to lead the Navy)Adm.
Linda Fagan: Commandant of the Coast GuardGen.
Timothy Haugh: Director of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command
John Phelan: Navy Secretary
Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse: Head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield: U.S. Military Representative to NATO’s Military CommitteeMaj.
Gen. William Green Jr.: Army Chief of ChaplainsGen.
David Hodne: Commander of Army Transformation and Training CommandGen.
James Slife: Air Force Vice Chief of Staff
During Donald Trump's second term, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the administration have fired or forced the abrupt departure of roughly 15 to over 20 high-ranking generals, admirals, and defense leaders. (By contrast, no high-ranking officers were dismissed during his first term).
Thanks! I really think we will be shopping for our FQB next year. And I believe we will be shopping our room for takers then or before then; We are young; we are marginal; we can't be as competitive with 4 QB's on our roster. And if one (at least) offers little beyond developmental potential, the upside is less. We need effective game processing and superior mental toughness to contend. But in the now for this season, we better assemble a finite list of measurable we will require of our FQB, not wishful thinking, not "wait and see"; we have seen it. Right now it seems a popularity contest, or its opposite. The questions some are choosing to answer and ask are 1) What are his glaring weaknesses? 2) What must we overlook in his body of work? 3) What must we ignore, or otherwise disregard in his performance? 4) What is genuinely required that will reverse past shortfalls? We need a reasonable metric that can be achieved and measured. I will trust Monken. It should allow wins and growth.
"the new stadium will reportedly be able to accommodate grass, just as several NFL venues did for the recently concluded 2026 FIFA World Cup. That means the Browns could have the option to swap out the turf for grass should the pressure from players be too heavy to ignore."
No it is not hard to grow grass in a dome. They put the field on rollers and can get the sunlight needed both from the roof design and the ability to roll the field out.
It is a matter of "want to" and to a degree cost. The data is clear grass prevents injury. The players want grass for a reason.
For the record: both Arizona and Vegas keep their turf outdoors. Both have more real estate at the site than we do, and both have much more favorable weather. I'm not sure about the science involved with dealing with harsh weather when your field is on wheels, but I would think there would be a lot more curve balls and expense in our harsh climate.
