Excerpt: "Harris, who estimates at least 75 percent of the grassfed beef consumed in America comes from Australia, New Zealand or Uruguay, said American consumers are being intentionally misled. Millions of pounds of beef, imported from other countries, are being wrongly labeled as 'Product of the USA,' Harris said."
Happy Memorial Day grilling! Do you know where your grass fed meat comes from? (photo: PXHere)
Do You Know Where Your Meat Comes From?
By Organic Consumers Association and Ronnie Cummins, EcoWatch
27 May 18
onsumers know if the tomatoes they buy in the supermarket were imported from Mexico. They know if the sweater they purchased was made in Vietnam.
They also know if the chicken they toss in their grocery cart was imported from another country. Under Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) laws, these products are required to carry labels that tell you if the product was imported from another country.
But beef and pork? Those products are exempt from COOL laws. That means consumers have no idea where their steak and bacon came from, unless the producer chooses to label it.
U.S. cattle ranchers say the failure to require COOL labels on beef is hurting their industry. That's especially true for ranchers serving the fast-growing grassfed segment of the beef industry said Will Harris, president of the board of directors of the American Grassfed Association (AGA) and a fourth-generation cattleman.
The grassfed industry suffers the most because, as Harris told us:
"The U.S. leads the world in the production of grain-fed beef. This production advantage primarily exists because grains and soy are so heavily subsidized under the USDA federal farm program. Grassfed beef producers in America are unsubsidized.
"The subsidies on grain permits our domestic grain-fed beef products to be marketed below the pricing thresholds that would allow stiff competition from imported product. The big winners in the repeal of COOL are the multinational meat companies. This has allowed them to shop for meat in the cheapest markets in the world, and bring it into the best market in the world, and sell it to consumers as 'Product of the USA,' even though the animal had never drawn a single breath of air in the United States."
Harris, who estimates at least 75 percent of the grassfed beef consumed in America comes from Australia, New Zealand or Uruguay, said American consumers are being intentionally misled. Millions of pounds of beef, imported from other countries, are being wrongly labeled as "Product of the USA," Harris said.
"U.S. grassfed producers can't come close to competing with cost of production of South American, Australian and New Zealand imports, especially considering producers in the exporting countries are similarly being exploited, forced to produce below cost, by the same multinational packers.
"The loss of COOL was a huge hit on the cattle price, especially grassfed prices due to extremely low cost of supposedly 'grassfed' imports, which allow importers and retailers to make ridiculous margins.
"I just returned from a ranch tour in Argentina. They think it's funny that most South American beef is considered 'grassfed.' They said that may have been true 20 years ago, but not today. Their highest-quality cattle prices were 30 percent below the U.S. at the time of my visit. South American beef has also been falsely considered organic by default."
Ranchers and other advocates of COOL are hoping a revamped North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will help them restore COOL labels on beef—but time may be running out.
Why Are Beef and Pork Exempt From COOL Labeling Laws?
COOL was first established under the Tariff Act of 1930 which required that, "unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked with its country of origin."
Over the years, COOL, as applied to meat, has evolved with a convoluted history.
Under COOL, imported beef and pork were required "to bear a label denoting the foreign country-of-origin of the beef all the way to the consumer, unless the beef undergoes a substantial transformation in the United States."
That sounds clear enough, but the "undergoes substantial transformation" in the U.S., along with exemptions under the law for some agricultural commodities, led to a series of changes in the law. According to the National Agricultural Law Center:
The requirements for listing the country of origin for beef and pork specifically were outlined in the COOL law, but were altered through the evolution of the proposed regulations and litigation with the World Trade Organization. In the original regulations, if the product had not undergone a substantial transformation in the United States, its country of origin was the one that was declared to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 7 C.F.R. § 60.200(f). However, if the product underwent a substantial transformation in the United States, the product must have been labeled as "product from [the country it was imported from], and processed in the U.S." 7 C.F.R. § 60.200(g)(2). If commodities were sold together, with only a part of it undergoing a substantial transformation in the United States, all the countries of origin must have been disclosed. 7 C.F.R. § 60.200(h). Similarly, commodities that had different countries of origin and/or methods of production could still be sold together, as long as all the countries and methods were listed, pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 60.300(d).
That's more or less how the law worked, with some tweaks here and there, until December 2008. That's when Canada and Mexico sued to overturn COOL requirements for beef and pork, arguing that the law violated international trade law because it discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock.
After much back and forth with rulings and appeals, in May 2015, the World Trade Organization (WTO) determined that the U.S. COOL requirements did in fact violate international trade law. The WTO also said the countries could impose $1.01 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods.
Soon after the WTO's ruling, in December 2015, Congress repealed COOL and Agricultural Sec. Tom Vilsack announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would no longer enforce the labeling law on beef and pork products. The repeal was a part of the $1.4-trillion omnibus spending bill, which was signed by President Barack Obama.
The USDA justified its decision by arguing that imported beef is a product of the U.S. even if it comes from a different country, as long as the country of origin has food safety standards similar to that in America.
U.S. ranchers rise up in defense of COOL
Ever since COOL was repealed in 2015, U.S. cattle ranchers, including those in the grassfed beef industry, have been vocal on the need to reestablish the labeling law.
According to a lawsuit filed in June 2017, by American ranchers and cattle producers against the USDA and Sec. of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, millions of pounds of beef are now being imported from various countries and labeled as "Product of the U.S.A," despite only undergoing repackaging in the U.S. The lawsuit alleges that this practice violates the Tariff Act of 1930.
While the lawsuit makes its way through the courts, Kenny Graner, president of the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, is looking for an opening in the recent NAFTA negotiations to strike a deal with Canada and Mexico that restore the labels on beef. (The WTO governs global trade, while NAFTA resolves trade disputes that erupt between only Canada, Mexico and the U.S.)
As talks continue on a modernized NAFTA, U.S. cattle producers remain disappointed in the lack of discussion on a WTO-compliant country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program. Country-of-origin labeling remains an important issue for cattle producers across the U.S. and consensus must be reached on how to best respond to consumer demand for accurate information. USCA continues to work toward truth in labeling on all fronts, and we hope the administration will do the same.
Graner cited industry figures showing that in 1994, the year NAFTA was implemented, the U.S. ran a surplus of $226.7 million in beef and a deficit of $978.8 million with Canada and Mexico combined. By 2016, the surplus in beef had become a deficit of $710.4 million, and the combined deficit in cattle had grown to $1.55 billion.
Political commentator Tomi Lahren expressed similar concerns in a Fox News Insider report, saying that U.S. ranchers and cattle producers have been "squeezed, poked and prodded by the meat packing industry." She went on to say:
They [the foreign beef producers and the big meat packers lobbyists] control the market. They control the price. They buy this cheap foreign beef, and your American ranchers are going under—and not because they can't compete in quality, but because that can't compete with mystery meat brought in from who knows where.
If the repeal of COOL is hurting the beef industry, it's even worse for grassfed producers, Harris told us. In an email he wrote:
"I was among the earliest of the American cattle producers who embraced the grassfed protocol. I have seen steady increases for demand of this product for the last 25 years. In the last few months, I have seen most of the necessary-for-production margin premiums eroded by imported grassfed beef."
U.S. cattle producers continue to lobby to get COOL reinstated, as they believe it will help create competition in the beef market, put a stop to consumer deception, reduce market manipulation, enable price discovery and support America's rural economy.
As Carrie Balkcom, executive director of American Grassfed Association, said:
"Consumers want to know when they go to the market that the grassfed meats they are buying are from these farms and farmers. Farmers that are restoring and regenerating their farms. Farmers and farms that are preserving and restoring their rural economies. Farmers and farms that are saving a way of life by allowing these farms to survive so the next generation can be supported.
"Feeding Americans with American products without the worry of whether or not other countries will or will not provide us with food. COOL provides these consumers with the knowledge that they are helping with these efforts. We cannot allow marketing and food conglomerates to decide what goes on a label."
If you want to support American-grown grassfed meat and dairy, buy directly from a trusted farmer near you or look for products that bear the American Grassfed Association logo to ensure that your food is truly a "Product of the U.S.A."
RSN: Memorial Day - 7 Facts Documenting Our Neglect of Millions of Veterans
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31402"><span class="small">Bill Quigley, Reader Supported News</span></a>
Sunday, 27 May 2018 12:07
Quigley writes: "While flags fly and politicians preach patriotism, millions of our veterans remain neglected. Here are seven examples."
Homeless veteran. (photo: Getty Images)
Memorial Day - 7 Facts Documenting Our Neglect of Millions of Veterans
By Bill Quigley, Reader Supported News
27 May 18
hile flags fly and politicians preach patriotism, millions of our veterans remain neglected. Here are seven examples.
20 – Twenty veterans die by suicide each day. In fact, the risk for suicide is 22 percent higher among veterans than the non-veteran population, according to the Veterans Administration.
24 – Twenty-four percent of all veterans, about 4.9 million people, have a service-connected disability. Hundreds of thousands more are trying to appeal denials of disability benefits.
40,065 – On a single night in January 2017, over 40,000 veterans were homeless, according to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Three in five homeless veterans were staying in emergency shelters or transitional housing. Over 15,000 homeless veterans were staying in places not suitable for human habitation.
318,000 – The Veterans Administration estimated there are over 318,000 appeals of veteran benefits pending nationwide, with an average wait time for appeals of 935 days.
1,465,807 – The Census Bureau reports that 1,465,807 veterans live under the official US poverty line.
1,500,000 – Almost 1.5 million veterans live in households with low enough incomes that they receive benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamps).
Bill Quigley is Associate Director of the Center
for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University New
Orleans. He is a Katrina survivor and has been active in human rights in
Haiti for years. He volunteers with the Institute for Justice and
Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) and the Bureau de Avocats Internationaux
(BAI).
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for
this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a
link back to Reader Supported News.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48257"><span class="small">Shaun King, The Intercept</span></a>
Sunday, 27 May 2018 08:36
King writes: "On Wednesday, 31 out of 32 NFL team owners voted to appease President Donald Trump by banning any form of on-field protest or demonstration during the pregame singing of the national anthem. One team owner abstained."
Indianapolis Colts. (photo: Darron Cummings/AP)
The Unbearable Whiteness of NFL Ownership
By Shaun King, The Intercept
27 May 18
n Wednesday, 31 out of 32 NFL team owners voted to appease President Donald Trump by banning any form of on-field protest or demonstration during the pregame singing of the national anthem. One team owner abstained: Jed York of the San Francisco 49ers, the former home of Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid, two players who’ve effectively accused the league of banning them in part because of their involvement in on-field protests.
At the root of all this is race and culture.
At least 70 percent of NFL players are black, according to the latest information available from The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, or TIDES, at University of Central Florida. Yet ownership of the league is much less diverse, according to TIDES: Only two teams, the Jacksonville Jaguars and Buffalo Bills, have people of color in majority ownership — a Pakistani-born American and an Asian-American, respectively. What’s more, the entire league doesn’t have a single African-American team owner — not one. And it is the team owners who are making the executive decisions in this case. The NFL players union announced that they weren’t even consulted before the team owners voted and made their announcement about the ban of any on-field demonstrations during the national anthem.
Race — and the corresponding life experiences, cultural understanding, and perspective that comes with it — might inform American politics now more than it ever has. No demographic was more likely to vote for Trump than white men. In an anonymous straw poll of NFL players undertaken by Bleacher Report, 21 out of 21 white players professed their support for Trump, while 20 out of 22 black players supported Hillary Clinton. Many of the team owners are huge Trump donors and supporters. Trump appointed Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets, to be the United States ambassador to the United Kingdom.
So while Trump railed against NFL players who demonstrated during the national anthem, using the ugly phrase “son of a bitch,” and said Wednesday they should consider leaving the country, he ultimately found team owners that were sympathetic to his demands. Again, whiteness is at the root here. Mike Freeman, of Bleacher Report, found intense hatred of Kaepernick among team executives. One executive literally called Kaepernick a “traitor,” and another said he was the most hated player in the league since Rae Carruth — a convicted murderer.
In black communities across this country, though, Kaepernick is a cult hero. Murals are painted of him. His afro will be ubiquitous in black art, on T-shirts and posters at every black festival across the country this summer.
And that’s the rub.
If the percentage of black NFL team owners resembled the percentage of black NFL players, Kaepernick and Reid would each be on rosters right now. When the Carolina Panthers were put up for sale, hip-hop mogul Diddy said he wanted to buy the team and make Kaepernick its quarterback. The team was sold to another white man instead. (According to a recent CNN report, neither Diddy nor the Panthers commented on whether the music mogul made an official bid.)
***
This is the story of all of professional sports. Of the 92 major professional sports teams in the U.S. — between the NFL, NBA, and MLB — there are only six teams with people of color as majority owners, and just one of them is an African-American.
One.
That means around 1 percent of owners of major professional sports teams are black. It’s outrageous — particularly considering that in many of the leagues, including the NBA, WNBA, and NFL, around 70 percent or more of the players are black, according to TIDES studies.
This arrangement — of black athletes playing sports and dominating their playing fields, all while creating tremendous wealth for white owners — was a direct consequence of one of the most glaring failures of American integration in the 1940s and 1950s. African-Americans once fully owned thriving sports leagues with franchises spread all over the country, from the Black Fives of basketball to baseball’s Negro leagues. But what integration ultimately meant in the U.S. was the demolition of black ownership, in sports and elsewhere, to integrate into white-owned spaces.
Now, more than ever, I hear black celebrities, moguls, investors, and even everyday people saying things like, “We need to start our own leagues.”
The current arrangement is humiliating. Trump insults and degrades professional athletes, then virtually dictates the new policies the NFL needs to adopt, then brags about it. And African-American players who’ve spent their entire lives preparing to play in the league are simply expected to shut up and take it.
Many leading black voices renewed their calls for a boycott of the league this week. And even this is another form of humiliation for black players — knowing that their primary audience will likely get whiter and whiter — while conscientious African-Americans feel that they must turn the game off to salvage a modicum of self-respect.
The fact of the matter is that these leagues were created by white people for the entertainment and wealth of white people. When African-Americans tinker with that formula — by demonstrating in a way that insults white sensibilities — they are shut down. Perhaps the only way to fix the problem is indeed to start new leagues with new owners and managers.
Corry writes: "It's become clear that many people have no understanding of just how extensive and complicated the ramifications of what C.K. did have been, and continue to be. They didn't end the day it happened and won't end any time soon for me, a comedian who has now spoken out against one of her own."
Six months after accusing Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct, comedian Rebecca Corry reflects on how the decision to speak out has affected her life. (photo: Courtesy of Rebecca Corry)
Louis CK Put Me in a Lose-Lose Situation
By Rebecca Corry, NY Magazine
27 May 18
t’s been six months since I spoke publicly about Louis C.K. in the New York Times. Nevertheless, I’m still getting media requests to talk about it. During this time, it’s become clear that many people have no understanding of just how extensive and complicated the ramifications of what C.K. did have been, and continue to be. They didn’t end the day it happened and won’t end any time soon for me, a comedian who has now spoken out against one of her own. So in the hopes I stop getting asked about it, I’ve decided to explain a few things about this impossible situation.
The day Louis C.K. asked to masturbate in front of me on the set of the TV show we were shooting, I was put on an unspoken “list” I never asked or wanted to be on. And being on that list has not made my work as a writer, actress, and comedian any easier. It was never on my vision board to be a Time magazine “silence breaker” or a lifelong goal to be pictured in People magazine, labeled as a “victim.” For 12 years, I actively tried to not be part of the C.K. masturbation narrative. But no matter how hard I tried, it kept finding me — at work-related events, on TV sets, social settings, and comedy clubs. I’d hear people defending him while unabashedly tearing apart the women who’d tried to bring what he was doing to light. It angered me and felt shameful to sit in silence, but I did, because I didn’t want to be a part of it.
I then took time to look at myself and my role in all of this. I considered the further personal and professional consequences there would be. The awkwardness it would cause with certain people, and how vulnerable it would make me. The fact that my name would be connected to his for speaking out made me sick. But then I thought about the fact that I tour the country saving victimized dogs, and advocate that “to ignore abuse is to condone it.” Every single day, I implore people to stand up for victims, but I wasn’t even standing up for myself. For these reasons, and for others too personal to mention, I made the difficult decision to change the narrative by telling the truth?.
Since speaking out, I’ve experienced vicious and swift backlash from women and men, in and out of the comedy community. I’ve received death threats, been berated, judged, ridiculed, dismissed, shamed, and attacked?.
Some have said, “He just asked to jerk off in front of you, what’s the big deal?” And I can’t count how many times people have told me, “Well, he did say sorry.” But he didn’t. Admitting what you did, and justifying it with “I always asked first,” is not the same as apologizing.
The comedians who choose to shame and attack are the most disappointing of all. Dave Chappelle, a self-proclaimed “feminist,” used his Netflix special as an opportunity to single out one of the C.K. accusers, saying she has a “brittle-ass spirit.” ?His rambling bit, filled with ignorance and vitriol, isn’t comedy. It’s just another example of a comedy giant misusing his power and platform to hurt someone. I heard another high-profile comedian on a podcast say he believes what C.K. did is no different than what Letterman did — referring to Letterman’s consensual relationship with an intern. To see certain outspoken late-night talk-show hosts relentlessly go after Weinstein, Trump, and others for their misconduct, and avoid mentioning C.K.’s name is just weird. I wonder, if he did what he did to their wives, sisters, mothers, or daughters, would it still be not worth mentioning??
It’s also been heartbreaking to see people I liked and respected lie and defend him. Two close friends I’d trusted and confided in for years, who were at the taping when it happened, refused to corroborate what happened to me in the New York Times using their names. Other friends simply stopped communicating with me. These are the same people I had seen on social media, proudly wearing pussy hats and Time’s Up pins at the Women’s March. Speaking out feels like standing in front of the world naked under fluorescent lights on a really bad day. I knew making myself so vulnerable would bring scrutiny from the outside, but my personal life has also been damaged by my decision to tell the truth.
That said, this experience has also revealed to me who has integrity, and I’m extremely grateful for that. There have been some incredible people who have publicly shown support and voiced intolerance for predatory behavior of any kind. New friends have come from this, and some comedians have thanked me for telling the truth, admitted they knew about it for years, and shared some horrible stories about things they’ve endured themselves. A well-known female comedian publicly acknowledged her friendship with and love for C.K. while at the same time condemning his behavior. She showed her support for the people he victimized and challenged everyone to do better. I appreciated that because I understand how uncomfortable, weird, gross, and awful this situation is for people to deal with and talk about. That’s exactly how I felt for 12 years. I don’t expect any of C.K.’s pals to disavow their friendships or deny his talent, but acknowledgement of abusers, and support for the abused, is needed for change to happen. Especially in comedy.
Now I’m being asked if I think C.K. will make a “comeback.” The idea that C.K. reentering the public eye would ever be considered a “comeback” story is disturbing. The guy exploited his position of power to abuse women. A “comeback” implies he’s the underdog and victim, and he is neither. C.K. is a rich, powerful man who was fully aware that his actions were wrong. Yet he chose to behave grotesquely simply because he could. The only issue that matters is whether he will choose to stop abusing women. The Time’s Up and #MeToo movements, and the journalists who cover them, would do well to focus on the people struggling in the aftermath, and less on the celebrities attaching themselves to the movement and salacious clickbait details. Everyone deserves to do their job without fear of being forced into an impossible situation. And no one should ever be attacked or judged for standing up for themselves.
I’d love to sum this up with a rainbow-and-butterfly sentiment about how this journey has enriched my life and brought me peace. But the truth is, it’s hell making the decision to speak out, and it’s hell after the decision has been made. That said, I will never regret telling the truth. I and so many others didn’t feel we had options, but hopefully now that’s changing. My advice to those thinking about telling their truth is to follow your heart, and do it for you. The truth won’t make a wrong right. It won’t stop some abusers from continuing their abuse and denial. It won’t stop the internet trolls, the clickbait journalism, or the friends who disappear when times are tough. Not ?everyone will respect your truth, and you may suffer further for telling it. But the truth will set you free?.
The Trump administration is seeking to criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the US-Mexico border, including parents. The policy is likely to separate thousands of families who arrive at the border by placing parents into the criminal justice system. Without their parents, children will be placed into the custody of ORR.
In March, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump administration for forcibly removing young children from their parents who are awaiting asylum hearings. The class action lawsuit “claims the practice by government agencies of separating young children from their families violates the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit represents a proposed class of ‘hundreds of individuals whose minor children have already been taken from them.’”
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tweeted excerpts from the lawsuit on Friday, pointing to one case in particular — a mother who said she has not seen her 18-month-old son since he was taken from her a month before — “a moral abomination, and a national shame.” Friday evening, Hayes dedicated a segment of “All In” to what he called Trump’s “despicable” policy and its affect on families who come to the United States seeking asylum — so, as Hayes points out, “not trying to sneak in.”
“Kids as young as nine years old, seven years old — cases of children as young as 18 months — ripped out of the arms of their mother and putting those children into government-run shelters for a very specific reason: To punish the immigrants.”
Earlier this month, White House chief of staff John Kelly was asked by NPR about the practice of arresting mothers who cross the border illegally with their children, which was then a recent proposal by attorney general Jeff Sessions. Unlike President Donald Trump, who since the earliest days of his campaign has spoken about immigrants with vitriol, Kelly told NPR that “the vast majority of the people that move illegally into United States are not bad people. They’re not criminals. They’re not MS-13. Some of them are not.”
But Kelly went on to say that these immigrants would struggle to “assimilate” due to lack of language skills. “A big name of the game is deterrence,” he said. The interview went on:
Family separation stands as a pretty tough deterrent.
It could be a tough deterrent — would be a tough deterrent. A much faster turnaround on asylum seekers.
Even though people say that’s cruel and heartless to take a mother away from her children?
I wouldn’t put it quite that way. The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long.
Believe it or not, the incredibly reassuring and specific language deployed by Kelly — “into foster care or whatever” — did not stir confidence among those who considered this practice, to borrow NPR’s phrasing, “cruel and heartless.”
Late Friday night, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a frequent critic of the Trump administration, aimed a tweet about this policy at first lady Melania Trump, referencing her Be Best initiative, which focuses on the “social, emotional, and physical health” of children, a campaign with “three pillars,” the first of which is children’s “well-being.”
Dear @FLOTUS: Separating toddlers from parents is definitely not a #BeBest policy. Are you going to do anything about it?
No one can take your #BeBest children's agenda seriously when your husband's policy rips kids from their parents and loses track of the children. https://t.co/IQTSrvTVP4
This morning, President Trump responded to the latest wave of pushback against his immigration policy with a tweet that claimed it was Democrats, not the president himself, responsible for this “horrible law” and featured a number of hallmarks of a classic Trump tweet: Arbitrary capitalization, a reference to the border wall, abuse of the caps lock key, and racially-charged language. (MS-13 are “thugs,” but the neo-Nazis who marched on Charlottesville were some “very fine people.” Interesting!)
Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there parents once they cross the Border into the U.S. Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL! DEMOCRATS ARE PROTECTING MS-13 THUGS.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.
onsumers know if the tomatoes they buy in the supermarket were imported from Mexico. They know if the sweater they purchased was made in Vietnam.
hile flags fly and politicians preach patriotism, millions of our veterans remain neglected. Here are seven examples.
n Wednesday, 31 out of 32 NFL team owners voted to appease President Donald Trump by banning any form of on-field protest or demonstration during the pregame singing of the national anthem. One team owner abstained: Jed York of the San Francisco 49ers, the former home of Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid, two players who’ve effectively accused the league of banning them in part because of their involvement in on-field protests.
t’s been six months since 
ow does one “lose” almost 1,500 children?
