Apparently, one can put a price on activism and, for Houston Texans linebacker Azeez Al-Shaair, that price is a tad under $12,000.

Al-Shaair reportedly was fined $11,593 by the NFL for wearing the message “stop the genocide” on his eye black either during or after the playoff game with the Steelers last week.

I tuned in to Sunday’s Houston-New England playoff contest in part to see if Al-Shaair was willing to invest more in spreading his political message. It was his last chance this season because the Patriots won handily in a game notable for offensive ineptitude on both sides. So long, Texans.

Interceptions and fumbles were the plays of the day in this 28-16 Patriots win.

As for Al-Shaair, I watched closely and there was one closeup shot during the broadcast, shortly after he had recovered a fumble, when I saw no political message on the black tape under his eyes. In fact, there were no messages at all, not even Happy Easter!

Yet, I saw online a report from a Houston television station that Al-Shaair sported his eye black message during the pregame activities. A confused New York Times story reported that, as I have noted, Al-Shaair had no eye black message when shown during the game, but may have had it pregame and perhaps during the game that we didn’t notice.

We are left to speculate why no very public eye black messages this time?

Yes, $11,593 would be considerable coin to me. But, if I were scheduled to make a reported $11 million in salary next year, as Al-Shaair is, I think if I felt so strongly about something, I’d keep paying the fine.

Understand, fining a guy making $11 million $11,593 is roughly equivalent to fining a guy making $50,000 a year a tad under $53 – that’s dollars, not hundreds or thousands of dollars.

I wonder how all those rabid types on social media, spouting about the initial fine, feel about their hero seemingly cheaping out?

I guess money does talk, or at least hits the mute button.

I think I will tune in today’s NFL playoff games, if only to get a chuckle over the league’s messaging conflict.

The increasingly woke NFL finds itself straddling a fence on such things. On the one hand, the league is eager to court leftists, many of whom don’t watch and don’t know whether a football is blown up or stuffed.

This metamorphosis is well illustrated by Super Bowl halftimes, which have gone from Up With People and the like in the past, to Bad Bunny this year, an unmistakable leftward lurch.

The few remaining rational individuals in the NFL hierarchy, realizing their money-printing machine exists on the back of an antitrust exemption, attempt to court the political right. We have “America 250” stenciled on the sideline of fields, admittedly not in places of prominence. It’s vintage NFL, giving a passing nod to a huge American celebration, and trying to make a buck by selling merchandise honoring it, but not embracing it enthusiastically.

Could the woke NFL be attempting to curry favor with the non-woke guy residing in the White House?

Somewhere along the line, the NFL figured out the football fields were merely huge billboards, a place to post messages with the added bonus of not just relying on foot traffic for people to see them, but instead having them beamed to millions via the magic mirror of television.

Say after me, “Choose Love” and “It Takes All Of Us,” the messages your NFL masters chose for the white strips beyond each end zone for this weekend’s games.

The Associated Press, which used to be reputable news organization, put out a story quoting an NFL “social responsibility” officer explaining that the messages this weekend were designed to honor Dr. Martin Luther King.

That story was accompanied by a photo with the “Choose Love” stencil, beyond an end zone that read Cowboys. We presume that was a reference to the Dallas Cowboys, who didn’t even make the playoffs this season, let alone remain standing this weekend. Clearly this was a very stale file photo, actually from more than a year ago, a reality that was admitted in very small type in the caption.

Typical AP.

This inadvertently illustrates the sleight-of-hand nature of NFL visual indoctrination.

I’m curious – and can’t easily find an answer on the internet – why of all four teams playing Saturday, only the San Francisco 49ers didn’t toe the line and have “Choose Love” messages on the back of their helmets. Their helmets instead had in that space a more traditional “49ers” in stylish type.

Denver, Buffalo and Seattle all dutifully fell into line on the matter of choosing love for helmet messaging.

Surely the 49ers, who admittedly play in Santa Clara, 40 miles south of the San Francisco that is their very leftist franchise namesake city (sort of like the New York Giants and Jets both playing in New Jersey) were not bucking NFL hierarchy.

But, if they were, imagine the joy at NFL offices along New York City’s Park Avenue that the 49ers came up on the short end of a 41-6 score. Yo, Western Pennsylvania yinzers, this means the 49ers lost by a larger margin in these playoff than your Steelers!

Today, the NFL propaganda machine will be on display as the Houston Texans and the New England Patriots play in an early game large with symbolism.

Texans linebacker Azeez Al-Shaair ran ahead of accepted NFL wokeness during his team’s lopsided playoff win over the Steelers, his eye-black patch reading “Stop The Genocide.”

This message referred not to the ongoing string of one-sided Steelers losses in the playoffs, but to the code the left uses to define Israel calling Palestinians to task for murdering thousands of Israelis in terror raids. Al-Shaair is a practicing Muslim.

We might well see such sideline messaging from the NFL in the future. But this individual callout was a violation of NFL “uniform and equipment” rules and has resulted in a reported fine of $11,593 for Al-Shaair.

The world breathlessly awaits Al-Shaair’s eye black message today, in a game ironically being played against the Patriots. Their logo is a stylized combination of the American Flag and a revolutionary war type with a tri-color hat. The old Patriots logo was of a revolutionary war soldier in full uniform hiking a football.

The NFL finds itself with a thorny messaging problem.

My advice: Choose Love. Go Patriots.

In the aftermath of the putrid Ravens-Steelers regular-season finale earlier this month, we wrote here of how wretchedly both teams had played.

Now, slightly more than a week later, Ravens coach John Harbaugh has been fired and Steelers coach Mike Tomlin has bowed to public pressure and resigned.

Tomlin and the Steelers put a good face on it all when the news broke Tuesday, but one has to wonder if the Steelers edged Tomlin to the door by demanding, perhaps, that he change his coaching staff wholesale. Legendary Steelers coach Chuck Noll was thought to have considered seriously resigning after a 1988 season, when Dan Rooney demanded he fire assistant coaches.

There was speculation of more of that behind-the-scenes intrigue when Noll did officially “retire” after the 1991 season.

Perhaps details of the Tomlin reasoning will leak out over time. For now, he has resigned. What we do know is there currently is an abundance of coaching openings in the NFL and I’d like to go on record proposing a wacky solution for two of them.

What if the Steelers and Ravens trade coaches?

Tomlin for Harbaugh, even up. Both coaches had existing contracts with their former employers. Both coaches had won Super Bowls previously in their careers, but had been experiencing slim playoff pickings more recently.

It has been argued that what both men needed was a fresh start, a change of scenery.

Many are speculating Tomlin won’t coach again until at least 2028, but Harbaugh already is making the rounds of NFL teams with coaching vacancies looking for a new place to hang his whistle.

It would be so ironic were Steelers fans to be expected to embrace the hated Harabugh. Same for Ravens fans and Tomlin.

The two coaches would need to face each other in games twice each season, producing soap opera story lines until either, or both, again were fired or quit.

Trades for coaches have happened before in the NFL. Back in 1970, Miami poached Don Shula from Baltimore, in what became a trade when the Dolphins were adjudged to have tampered with another league franchise and had to send Baltimore a first-round draft pick.

The New England Patriots sent first-, fourth- and fifth-round picks to the New York Jets to get Bill Belichick in 2000.

There have been others, including in 2023, when the Denver Broncos shipped first- and second-round picks to New Orleans in exchange for Sean Payton and a fourth-round pick.

Hell, the Pirates grabbed Chuck Tanner in a November 1976 trade, sending catcher Manny Sanguillen and $100,000 to Oakland to get Tanner as manager.

Admittedly, this Harbaugh-Tomlin proposal would be the first heads-up trade of head coaches we can find in the NFL. But, judging by the success of previous coaching trades, it seems to be better than a mere novelty suggestion.

It would not, however, be the largest trade in NFL history. That came in 1972, when Carroll Rosenbloom, owner of the Los Angeles Rams, swapped franchises with Baltimore Colts owner Jim Irsay.

The coaches, the players, the uniforms, the whole ball of wax, got exchanged.

In intervening years, both host cities lost their franchises. There are Cleveland aspects to both stories

The Rams, who had begun life in Cleveland (1937-1945), moved to Los Angeles (1946-94), then to St. Louis (1995-2015) and back to Los Angeles (2016-present).

The Colts have moved to Indianapolis in 1984, being replaced when the Cleveland Browns moved to town as the Baltimore Ravens for the 1996 season.

Just one question: If we’re going to trade Tomlin for Harbaugh, what’s the Cleveland angle?

Being a sportswriter is sort of like being a policeman in that you are compelled to see the often unpleasant underside of your field of work, a side that tends to escape the gaze of the general public.

And, even though I hung up writing full-time for pay a long time back, I still get feedback occasionally regarding the old stomping grounds.

I’ve committed a pun with “stomping grounds” because today we step (another pun) into the field of foot fetishism.

Once, when an athlete was credited with having good feet, it meant he or she was nimble, graceful, perhaps elusive.

These days, good feet might mean possessing a commodity marketable online to foot fetishists.

There are rumors coursing through the area high school sports community of athletes at multiple schools tapping the online market to sell pictures of their feet and reap rewards.

I’ve even heard of one team doing it together as a fund-raiser! Sure beats selling four square feet or so of wrapping paper for $15, as one school fund-raising shyster did to my mother maybe two decades back.

A story relayed to me regarding one non-athlete partaking of this foot fetish opportunity, was about a kid who discovered his feet were in demand and he could make a lot more money with pictures of his feet than he could working part-time at some fast-food joint.

I will confess right now I’m no foot fetishist – not, to borrow the phrase from the Seinfeld episode on homosexuality, that there’s anything wrong with it.

But, I hear when these young purveyors of foot fetish photos are found out, they are forced to stop due to legal concerns.

Because it is consensual, and there presumably is no physical contact, I was curious as to why, so I did some internet probing.

According to what I found, it is illegal for minors (under the age of 18) to participate. This is despite the reality that minors can risk burns operating the fryer at a fast-food outlet, be victims of robbery should the outlet be mistaken for an ATM by robbers, and otherwise face potential adverse consequences from jobs they legally are allowed to work.

But, for some entrepreneur to discover his or her feet are in demand photographically, is wrong just because he or she is 17 years of age or younger, conflicts me.

This is a chance for them go get their foot – another pun– in the door of free enterprise.

It could be a first step – again, a pun – on the road to building a successful business.

And, finally, at least the sellers of the photos are footing the bill for their upkeep, not sucking at the government teat. Dare I dream they actually pay income tax?

It is time for these content providers to organize and strike back the way abortion seekers (and, notably, minors in some states are not barred from seeking abortions) demonstrate with signs and shirts pushing back on government control of their bodies.

I’ve got a suggestion for the slogan for the T-shirts of would-be foot fetish photo providers challenging governmental regulation: Keep Your Hands Off My Feet.

The NFL playoffs already are a success in my book, with the Kansas City Swifts missing them entirely and the Philadelphia Eagles having been shown the door Sunday.

No doubt the NFL and its shill announcers will pick other teams to build up to annoying levels, but for now we can just enjoy the games.

Attention turns to your Steelers and questions abound regarding tonight’s home game vs. the Houston Texans.

Can the Steelers win a playoff game for the first time since the 2016 season?

Can Aaron Rodgers put together good games back to back?

Can the Steelers win a 24^th straight Monday Night Football home game?

My answers are no, no and no, but I’m wrong a lot regarding such matters.

The Steelers get this far a lot, but of late do nothing once arriving in the playoffs. Mike Tomlin is a career loser at 8-11 in postseason games he has coached. This is not exactly Super Seventies Steelers stuff.

The sages on espn.com all picked the Texans, giving 3.5 points, about a week ago. The spread was down to 3 points in an updated post Sunday evening, but all still were picking the Texans, to win outright and to cover that spread. Interestingly, three of four took the over 38.5 bet to hit and only one picked under.

But the Steelers are getting love elsewhere, like on si.com, where the pick is to take the Steelers and the three points, while not explicitly calling for an outright Steelers win.

I can see the Steelers hanging close, an outcome made likely by the styles of both teams, but in the end I’d expect Houston to win by more than three points.

I really liked the under last week in the season finale vs. Baltimore, which looked good until the teams inexplicably started trading touchdowns late.

This kind of outlier means I’d forget the over-under and all the prop bets, just take the Texans to win and give the points.

Part of that hinges on my anticipation that Rodgers won’t star in the game.

I was struck, while watching the Philadelphia loss Sunday, that Eagles coach Nick Sirianni looks an awful lot like Rodgers, particularly with a winter cap pulled low over the brow, emphasizing the bony face and scruffy beard.

They are contemporaries in terms of age, with Sirianni being 45 years old and Rodgers, 42. But Sirianni is coaching, not maneuvering around the pocket with his walker.

The Steelers will protect Rodgers with lots of screens and other quick passes, but that Texans defense just might track him down a time or two.

Much is made of the Steelers beating Baltimore last weekend, neatly forgetting it took a choke on an attempted field goal by the Ravens for the Steelers to prevail.

Also, emotions run high that the return of wide receiver DeKaylin Zecharius Metcalf from his two-game suspension will be the difference.

Maybe, but not likely.

Last, the Steelers are supposed to be guaranteed winners at home on Monday Night. But all streaks end, eventually.

The Houston defense is good. Quarterback C.J. Stroud, while inconsistent, tends to get it done eventually.

Texans win.

In the sort of classic psychological projection that is part and parcel of delusional leftist mentality, these people froth at the mouth while accusing the opposition of having exactly the same failings they exhibit.

Example: Leftists insist all Trump supporters are cult members blindly supporting Trump and incapable of rational thought that would allow disagreement. And the left didn’t neatly overlook the many foibles of Clueless Joe Biden, for example?

But many of the MAGA types I know do disagree at times with Trump. The ongoing flap over possibly charging Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell for allegedly fibbing to Congress is one of those times for me.

Powell put out a video over the weekend saying the justice department investigating him criminally for misstating aspects of the ongoing Fed building renovations while testifying to Congress was all political retribution because he hasn’t reduced interest rates as quickly as President Trump would have liked.

Yes, Jay, it sure does look political, just as your virtually unprecedented rate cut – and 50 basis points at that instead of the more common 25 basis points – just before the 2024 election looked like you were being political and trying to shepherd Cackling Kamala over the finish line in her race with Trump.

Trump holds a grudge. Consider many believe he decided to run for president in large part because Barry Obama chided him at a public event that he lacked credentials to serve in the office, as Barry did, for two terms.

Trump now has won two presidential elections, and many think a third, either matching or exceeding Barry’s total depending on your views regarding 2020, and either way has stripped Mr. Hope and Change of any more snippy one-liners.

You see, Barry holds grudges, too. Most politicians do.

But Trump is making a mistake in going after Powell. He’s rocking the boat unnecessarily since Powell’s term as Fed chairman is set to end in May, even though Powell could remain on the board of governors for two more years.

Perhaps Trump wants him gone totally, and has seen enough of a political bent in Powell that he knows the wizened guy will hang on as long as possible just to continue to play politics with the nation’s monetary policy.

Regardless, I think Trump should just let Powell’s chairmanship reach its expiration date, like a gallon of rancid milk, and move on with his agenda. Deal with Powell in a reduced role if needed down the line.

Investment markets were reacting to the Powell news early Monday. Gold was up more than $100 an ounce and silver was up more than $5. Stock market averages were down considerably.

Stock and bond markets want stability and everyone to get along. The precious metals markets tend to rise when people don’t get along.

I’m making money on the precious metals rise, but this is just one of Trump’s actions with which I disagree. It doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t support most of his acts and want more of the same.

This merely is a case of a MAGA type being a rational thinker, something those on the left might want to try for a change.

We are inundated with absurd takes on current events, a seemingly never-ending supply of inanity from those who should — and possibly do — know better. This prompts us to search for context by inserting such typical lunatic reasoning into everyday events and seeing how that plays out.

Consider first, a spelling bee at one of those ubiquitous Somali-run Minneapolis learning centers.

MODERATOR: Please spell the word “learning.”

YOUNG SOMALI CONTESTANT: 1,000 pardons (which is less than 25 percent of the pardons issued by your Clueless Joe Biden when he was the leader of this Great Satan country) could you use the word in a sentence?

MODERATOR: Yes. We are holding this spelling bee in a “learning” center.

CONTESTANT: Praise Allah, I will attempt to comply with your request. That would be L as in larceny. E as in embezzlement. A as in antisemitism. R as in racket. I as in infidel. N as in nefarious. G as in graft.

MODERATOR: Oh, sorry. You missed an N.

CONTESTANT: Again, 1,000 pardons (about the number of pardons Minnesota Democrats will require when this fraud investigation is completed) but I did have an N in my answer.

MODERATOR: That is correct, but the word “learning” has two N’s.

CONTESTANT: That is absolutely false and I fear I am beginning to detect Islamophobia. Did you not see the sign over the entrance? Clearly, it reads “Learing Center.”

MODERATOR: But, that was a mistake, a ridiculously basic error which has become a meme for the absurdity and corruption of these centers.

CONTESTANT: This is most regrettable. I humbly request another word, perhaps intifada. May this worthless one also suggest a sentence using the word: You will be subject to an intifada if you choose to remove me from this contest based on what you claim to be my misspelling of learning. As the useful leftist idiots who support me and others like me might say, we’re going to burn you, and this, down.

MODERATOR: Oh. Well, I guess that means you win, the rest of the spelling bee is canceled, and we can all go home. Nothing to see here.

Let us now move to a scene of football replay officials, be they college or pro, nitpicking ad nauseam videos that should elicit almost immediate verdicts, even as experts on the broadcasts think out loud regarding their eventual decision. In this case, they are looking at videos of the ICE shooting of an assailant, again in Minnesota.

REPLAY OFFICIAL 1: OK, do we have an angle that shows whether or not the individual hit the ICE officer with her vehicle?

REPLAY OFFICIAL 2: I’m hoping to land a gig with CNN, so I want to eliminate any such videos from this review and instead concentrate on videos that might call into doubt the behavior of the ICE officer.

BOOTH EXPERT: Fans on both sides are going crazy waiting for this crucial call. I’m not sure what they’re looking at. It seems pretty obvious to me.

TYPICAL ANNOUNCER: So, when you were officiating, did you face situations like this and how did you decide which way to call it?

BOOTH EXPERT: Well, again, back in the day, we had limited video and angles. But, in this case there is such clear and evident video, from pertinent angles, I can’t believe these guys are taking so long.

REPLAY OFFICIAL 1: What I’m seeing is the driver making a conscious effort to identify the ICE officer was in front of her vehicle, turning the wheels to point the vehicle toward him and, accelerating into him as the passenger seat occupant, who was back in the vehicle after trashtalking ICE people, urges her to go.

REPLAY OFFICIAL 2: Make sure CNN gets this next bit from me. I’m not sure the ICE officer had firm control of his firearm and both feet inbounds in front of the vehicle when the alleged, purported, supposed contact is claimed to have occurred, perhaps, possibly.

TYPICAL ANNOUNCER: An ironic coincidence just occurred to me. The shooting victim’s name was Renee Nicole Good, initials almost RNC, and when you type RNC into a Bing search, the entire first page of results has to do with the Republican National Committee. Just sayin’.

REPLAY OFFICIAL 1: I heard the network guys doing the game are getting impatient. As much as you LameStream media types and my fellow replay official would like to absolve the instigator of any guilt or responsibility, the video is clear, she committed the initial penalty and paid a price much stiffer than losing a few yards. Here’s more irony, considering her name, this truly was a Good shooting. Make sure Fox News gets that last bit.

A confused type tried to run down an ICE officer in Minneapolis, got shot dead for her efforts, and we have more political red meat for the deranged leftists of LameStream media and the political world who now feel licensed to whine about Gestapos, Nazis, the death of democracy, the shredding of the Constitution, and the need for free bus rides, cheaper housing and no voting regulations.

Quick to shoot from the lip, consistent in propagandizing rather than reporting or informing, the usual suspects are backed by their leftist foot soldiers who already are picking up their pre-printed signs and hitting the streets looking to gin up social upheaval. Early indications are the ample money from shadowy leftist billionaires isn’t producing as much action on the ground these days as it once did.

The obvious question is, what is wrong with these people on the out-of-touch political left that they see up as down, right as wrong, righteous as evil? Why do they persist in telling lies when we have ample video available to show exactly what happened? Spoiler alert: It didn’t go down even close to the way they are portraying it.

There are many other questions I’ve been asking.

If Tim Walz was so upset that President Trump branded him “retarded,” why does Walz seem bound and determined to live down to the characterization of his mental ability as witnessed by his handling of the Somali fraud and now the shooting of the ICE assailant?

Along a similar line, how could Minneapolis mayor Jacob a few Frey(s) short of a Happy Meal proclaim to have watched video of the deceased terrorist trying to run down the ICE officer and call the assertion that he shot her (it) in self-defense BS?

How come these scofflaws, most lately the guy who thinks he’s a woman who vandalized J.D. Vance’s house, to this lesbian ICE attacker, all seem to have what could politely be called “alternative” lifestyles?

Could it be all those years of having their odd choices lionized and held up as ideals that one should aspire to, perhaps warped their sensibilities?

Did anyone else read or hear that the ICE agent forced to shoot to protect himself and fellow officers in Minneapolis this week is the same guy dragged 100 yards last June in Minneapolis by an illegal in a vehicle?

Did you see his name is Jonathan Ross (no relation)?

Can you believe assorted Democrat buffoons in Congress have painted the Minneapolis shooting incident as racism, white privilege, or maybe failure of the social safety net to provide vehicles with bulletproof glass to facilitate running down federal law enforcement types?

Is anyone else noticing the dead attacker was referred to almost across the board as a “legal observer,” and can we assume this is a euphemism along the line of Maryland dad or Maryland husband?

Does “legal observer” mean delusional vigilante feeling entitled to interfere with arrests and attempt to injure duly appointed law enforcement officers?

Can anyone say with any certainty whether the deceased woman actually lived or worked in Minneapolis – I’ve read conflicting stories – or just showed up to do legal observation, perhaps on some leftist payroll?

Did you read she had one child – somehow – with her current wife, but two other children are said to live with the extended family?

Are you confused that someone who reportedly graduated with a degree in English could not understand the simple command to halt and not attempt to run over a member of law enforcement?

Do you think Walz thought maybe for a moment this would spare him from taking the fall for the Somali fraud case?

Amy Klobuchar’s antics regarding Tim Walz and his aborted run for re-election as governor of Minnesota struck home with me for an unusual reason. I, too, once was reduced to eating food with a comb.

If you are late to the party, Klobuchar is a reigning Democrat senator from Minnesota, who reportedly is considering replacing Walz in the gubernatorial run, while appointing hapless Tim to keep her Senate seat warm.

During the course of reading breathless reports of this typical Democrat demagoguery, one entry made a headline reference to Klobuchar being scandal-plagued.

The click-bait headline worked. I wanted to read about Klobuchar’s scandals.

If I had heard about it previously, it had been unceremoniously forgotten.

But, it was noted that Klobuchar, like most Democrats with even the slightest national name recognition, once thought she should run for president.

Klobuchar quickly exited that chase, in part, because of aides leaking how tough she was to work for, and citing examples.

One humorouos instance they shared was about a lackey forgetting to pick up plastic utensils so that Klobuchar could wolf down a salad on a flight. Klobuchar had to reach into her purse for a comb to eat the salad. She then berated the staffer for his oversight, and sent him to wash the comb after she had eaten.

As a side note, beware the fact checkers. One questionable such site, hopefully writing satirically, called the whole story into question, neatly ignoring that Klobuchar has admitted publicly multiple times to eating that salad with a comb.

I’m here to say that while I think Klobuchar is absurdly out of step with traditional American values and due to that is a dangerous person to have in a place of national prominence, I don’t hold it against her for eating with a comb.

Many years back, a cousin and I trekked to the Watkins Glen racetrack to view sports car racing. On the way to the hotel, we visited a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet, in Horseheads, N.Y., as I recall, getting the food at the drivethrough window.

Alas, upon returning to the hotel, we discovered they’d given us no forks, spoons or knives.

Klobuchar, in recounting her incident – the one the fact-checking site found to be unproven – likened herself to a real-life MacGyver, her reference being to a TV series that began in the 1980s in which the title character showed amazing improvisational skills in using everyday objects to get him out of jams.

Anticipating Klobuchar – and MacGyver – I had used an aluminum comb I carried with me daily to eat my mashed potatoes. The chicken was no problem, the legs and breasts being eaten easily by hand.

My cousin, lacking a comb, ate a chicken leg first, then used the bone to eat his mashed potatoes.

Reading the Klobuchar tale made me laugh and prompted a call to him, producing more laughter at the memories.

Notable, however, is that neither he, nor I, took out our anger regarding a lack of utensils on aides (we had/have none) or other innocent third parties.

Today’s scribblings are inspired by the words of the late, great Joe Schmidt – again. The man’s memorable, graphic maxim on life had inspired a post here the past July

As a refresher, Schmidt was a Pittsburgh native, played linebacker at Pitt, went on to play in the NFL for the Detroit Lions, including winning an NFL championship with them, then coached the Lions for six seasons and afterward moved on to a successful career running a firm that supplied the region’s auto manufacturers.

While still involved with football, Schmidt uttered the definitive observation on the human condition: “Life is a shit sandwich and every day you take another bite.”

Life isn’t easy, and it isn’t supposed to be, regardless of what you hear from the congenital whiners of Gen X or Gen Z. You put on your big boy pants and soldier on, which is what Schmidt said and did.

But, there are times when the sandwich is tastier, when the news is good and hope springs for even better.

This is such a time.

Just Monday, Tampon Tim Walz, bowing to the mounting Somali fraud scandals Democrats seem to have abetted in Minnesota, announced he would not run for re-election as governor there.

Considering the checkered military background of Walz, him running away is somehow fitting.

Walz went from denying the scandal and branding any that spoke of it as racists or islamophobes to acknowledging – sort of – massive corruption occurred on his watch. Oh, he still carped about Republicans taking advantage of the situation to make political hay.

You might say Walz fell on his sword, but this klutz would have missed the blade. Have you seen videos of him trying to load a shotgun?

It’s hard not to shudder at the thought that this fool would have been a mere heartbeat away from the presidency had Cackling Kamala’s Democrats been able to pull off another election “miracle” on par with 2020.

Now, Tampon Tim can go from screaming nonsensically at rallies, rejoicing that his state’s employee pension funds took a hit when Tesla stock declined, or doing photo ops as the human trophy of Democrat powerbrokers, back to wrangling his strange family that includes the cringeworthy turn-the-page hand gestures of wife Gwen, odd social media ramblings of daughter Hope and any foibles of son Gus (whose name should be Change to go with Hope, right?).

In typical Walz unintentional humor, Tim (referred to as Tim, not dad, by Hope) posted a video before a morning run to announce Tim is not running. You can’t make up this crap.

All of this came on the heels of a weekend that saw Nicolas Maduro surgically removed as dictatorial head of Venezuela, prompting the usual outcry from enemies of America, both foreign and domestic.

I was particularly encouraged, though, that many culled through the social media archives to find prominent Democrats in the not-too-distant past screaming for Maduro to be handled. They just didn’t like that Donald J. Trump did it this time.

There was a post from Clueless Joe Biden as a campaigner vs. Trump, calling Maduro a thug and dictator, accusing Trump of talking tough but doing nothing and Biden promising to do something about it once he was president.

Well, for four years of hiding in the potted plants as president, Biden did nothing. Less than a year on the job during his second term, Trump has eliminated Maduro as a problem, both for us and Venezuela.

Also, crying Chuck Schumer, the Democrat leader terrified the ultra-left wing of his party is going to send him to the old folks home for inept politicians, decried Trump’s weekend removal of Maduro. Yet, there Chuck was in 2020 complaining Trump had not dealt with Maduro.

It is true that if Trump walked on water tomorrow, Democrats and their lapdogs in LameStream media would headline: Trump Can’t Swim!

While it truly is heartening to see the Walz, Biden and Schumer types of this world be exposed for the hypocrites that they are, I’m more encouraged by the long game Trump seems to be playing.

It is becoming increasingly clear that blue states and cities have bastardized social programs and found a way to use them to funnel money toward maintaining Democrat political power, the better to keep the cycle repeating.

Similarly, Venezuela was a critical source of aid and comfort to our enemies, from a base in our hemisphere. From propping up Cuba, to helping China and Russia skirt economic sanctions and restraints, Venezuela was the international equivalent of Minnesota’s Somalis.

By cutting off the purloined money domestically, Trump is leveling the political playing field here. By taking out Venezuela, he is doing the same regarding matters of international security and economics.

Looming over all this is the very real possibility that Democrats will be able to pull a psyop on the American populace and take control of the House of Representatives in November.

That would neuter Trump and end all the great long-range plans. It is a very real possibility and it would result in more bites of Schmidt’s disgusting sandwich.

Until then, let us enjoy the moment.