This week, the leaders and owners of the NFL voted in a rule with almost no resistance …
NFL owners voted Tuesday night to approve a set of rules that allow for offensive and defensive passport interference, including non-call, must be revised.
Coaches can challenge these calls in the first 28 minutes of each half. In the last two minutes of each half, these calls will be subject to a booth review.
This rule change is only in the 2019 season.
Owners passed the provision 31-1 at the annual rental meeting in Phoenix on Tuesday evening.
If you remember, in the last match of the NFC season, a Rams player hit a Saints player way early on a big game and the referee didn't call it. Millions of people saw it on their screens as clear as a bell, and then millions more on the evening and on the Internet millions and more times. It could not have been more obviously obvious that it was a non-call – a non-call that cost the Saints their place in the Super Bowl.
The wrong team went to the big game and they looked like the wrong team beautiful much from the open start.
The owners were almost unanimous in their vote to try out the new system where calls and non-calls for pass-on can be seen on the command of the coach (both sides of the ball). They did not agree with this because they are fans of New Orleans Saints. They did so because after a few passionate speeches from their peers, they realized that this terrible situation could happen to any team. For every coach. For any owner. For any fan base. For every city.
There is a lot of self-interest here. It is a non-biased problem for teams and owners and coaches. They depicted themselves in the position of Gayle Benson, the holy owner, they asked themselves how it might feel if it happened to their own team.
– David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) February 4, 2019
New Orleans City gave the Super Bowl, which its team belonged to the middle finger. Yours sincerely.
There is no reason why fans get a better overview of what is happening in the game than that the officials on the pitch get the technology we currently have. The sport is too big, lucrative and meaningful for its fans for the wrong team to be sent to the championship over a mistake.
So what else should be biased? If the coaches of the 31 NFL franchise across America could find common ground to improve their common existence, could the rest of us at some level be right?
Maybe not. The second day I learned that financial protection for mom and pop investors is a partisan question. In fact, there is a party in favor of a wolf in sheepskin access and a party in favor of defending the economically unsophisticated of these wolves.
My colleague Dina Isola testified to Parliament's Financial Committee in Congress and questioned representatives from both sides at a time. The Republicans seemed to be on the side of the investment industry who wanted as little to change as possible to maximize profits. The Democrats were more to strengthen the rules and introduce a genuine, universal fiduciary standard for the care of all economic practitioners. There is no surprise there.
The Iranian at all is that in recent years the Republican Party has become the party of the blue collar, working class, soon-to-retired family from the heart. It is these people, statistically and in my opinion, who are most often abused, lied to, robbed and ripped off in broad daylight by broker and insurance machine. These are the people who once had their retirement generously covered by pensions, but due to declining trade union and settlement of defined benefit plans now faces reality alone. They must decide which vehicles to put in. They must decide on the right investment choices. They need to understand the tax implications of their decisions. They must calculate the true fees and costs they pay. They must somehow make sure that they work with an advisor who actually has an interest in taking their side over, whose side pays them a sales concession on a product.
And how is this going? It's a slaughterhouse.
The most terrible lie on Wall Street is that brokerage firms can't afford to work with this client client if they can't get away with egregious sales practices and hidden fees. At the age of automated asset allocation, model ETF portfolios, robo counseling and target datafunders, we know this is complete and completely unclear. I have proven it seven million times here on my blog, and there are hundreds of other voices just like mine – in the industry and journalism covering the industry – do this point every day.
But insurance companies and brokerage firms spend a lot of money on political results. Which is what makes this a partisan question. And that's why people are sold annuities within 403 (b) plans at the schools that Dina and Tony Isola visit. And that is why people who would be well away with a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds are being sold shares in unrealized Real Estate Investment Trusts. Or oil and gas LP's. Or funds from hedge funds. Or any other kind of schlock that pays the seller a large upfront fee and leaves retail investors something so sub-optimal that they would be better off if they hadn't invested at all and simply spent the money on vacations and clothes.  Apparently, clean drinking water is now also a partisan question. Many people believe that we should use federal, money and energy to ensure that all water is made available to our fellow Americans, is safe to drink, so people do not end up with genetic disorders and diseases and children with brain damage and permanent swollen communities . Even in Dark Ages Europe, they took care of protecting people from drinking bad water (usually by replacing it with beer in a lead cake, but I give up). We can't even get our shit together here and everyone agrees to do something about this. It's a fight instead.
There should be no "other side" to any problem. Some problems should just be obvious to everyone as we get them fixed.
You do not have to agree with the Green New Deal or believe that it is a viable solution to the environmental problems the world is facing. I'm definitely not a fan. But can we at least agree that there is a problem and that it has to be solved? Can we agree with AOC despite your feelings about her personally that science is a non-biased question (or should it be?).
I want to make her word the last word here …