August 11th, 2017 at 7:10 PM ^
On one hand im glad to have a WR with some good game experience, the other im not so glad that the same guy assaulted a girl. It's done and over with so no need clinging to it, hopefully he contributes and has learned from his mistake.
August 11th, 2017 at 7:16 PM ^
IMO, the "sexual assault" charge was bogus, and had nothing to do with any physical contact between Perry and the girl, and everything to do with the fact that this girl was a MSU fan and knew Perry was a Michigan football player and wanted to get him in trouble. I find it extremely hard to believe it coincidence that this happened in East Lansing in a club line full of Sparties. What ulterior motives could possibly be in play, right? Jim Harbaugh is a just man and I trust him to make the right decision, which is not to let this false charge steal more of Perry's career. Perry obviously did the wrong thing running from the cops, and he's paid the price for that. Really unfair to the kid to penalize him any more.
August 11th, 2017 at 7:31 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 7:41 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 7:58 PM ^
Well, the fact that the sexual assault charges were dropped seem like a pretty good reason to disbelieve her.
The incident allegedly occurred in line outside a bar, where there were plenty of witnesses. You don't drop the SA charge in that circumstance unless the witnesses aren't corroborating the woman's allegations.
That plus Perry's version of the event seems much more plausible on its face (that he tried to cut in line, they argued, he shoved her away). I don't think sexual assaults by football players in enemy territory standing in a line full of adverse witnesses happens very often. OTOT, getting into arguments over cutting in line happen all the time.
I'm not saying 100% for sure it didn't happen, but I don't think it's unreasonable to question the woman's credibility.
August 11th, 2017 at 8:25 PM ^
Personally, I don't want him back on the team. I also know that I don't have all the information the people who are ultimately making the decision have. What I won't do is decide I don't believe the victim, especially when it comes to what she's saying she's dealing with now as a result of the incident, just because it's easy to victim-blame and I like Michigan football.
August 11th, 2017 at 9:05 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 9:24 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 9:55 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 10:06 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 10:16 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 10:48 PM ^
The counter argument you're making to all of that is.... what, exactly? 'She's probably lying because I say so?' Seems pretty unreasonable to me.
August 11th, 2017 at 11:49 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 10:56 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 11:22 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 11:35 PM ^
She paid $117 for her counseling. Does that sound to you as if she got a complete diagnosis that was sufficiently thorough to determine that she is suffering from PTSD?
August 12th, 2017 at 12:51 AM ^
August 12th, 2017 at 6:24 PM ^
The court ordered restitution so its the full amount paid, an insurance company would also be made whole. At $60 an hour that's less than 2 hours to make the diagnosis. That's pretty cheap for a medical diagnosis of a very complex mental state.
August 12th, 2017 at 9:30 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 8:06 PM ^
Not joking here folks(nor meaning to diminish REAL sexual assault) but we are getting close to a time where merely the lustful states of a man directed at a woman will justify prosecution.
Father of a daughter & a son here btw. I'm as scared for him & what could result of a miscommunication as I am for her.
Gonna be such a better world when we all walk around with contracts at the ready and notary witnesses to ensure this stuff never ever happens again.
August 11th, 2017 at 8:16 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 10:31 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 10:49 PM ^
I am very happy to see that Grant Perry didn't ruin his life by acting like a teenager. I am also happy that we have a coach that has the guts to do the right thing and not subscribe to prevailing group think.
August 11th, 2017 at 11:12 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 8:25 PM ^
This is the kind of reply that explains what's wrong with this country and why it elects an imbecile.
August 12th, 2017 at 12:07 AM ^
Three years ago the state amended its Education Code to require all higher ed institutions to require an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant or lose all state funding. See SB 967 (DeLeon, 2014) adding Section 67386 to the Education Code.
Several years ago when Jackie Speier was in the legislature she carried a bill to make "hurtful laughter" a basis for sexual harassment. That bill failed but that's the sort of thing that the current majority loves to go back to.
As to the reason the country would elect an imbecile President, Its because the majority of voters recognized that the alternative was worse.
August 12th, 2017 at 1:45 AM ^
1) The majority of voters did not elect an imbecile in lieu of the "alternative" you're talking about. The imbecile lost by nearly 3 million votes, but we don't live in a true democracy.
2) California has a stronger economy and culture than the average state in this country, by far. If you want to pick a state that is failing miserably, try Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia or one of the many states won by said imbecile, not one with a larger economy than Russia, France, the UK, much higher than average incomes, social acceptance, lower than average crime compared with other big cities, and lower than average rates of the drug epidemic.
3) You should probably leave California if you're so unhappy with it. I'm sure Oklahoma would love you.
August 12th, 2017 at 6:55 AM ^
August 12th, 2017 at 1:35 PM ^
California's combined state and local debt is 14.35% of GDP. That is lower than the country's average of 15.75%. Michigan sits at 17.57%.
Perhaps the best comparison between two giant, dynamics states, is California and Texas, our nation's two biggest.
Texas' state and local debt combines for 22.46% of its GDP, the second highest in the country, whereas California is at 14.35%. So, Texas, which has one of the worst social safety nets and environmental regulations, is far further from being able to pay for the expenses they do have.
August 12th, 2017 at 10:05 AM ^
1. A majority of voters cast their vote against Hillary Clinton, who was the only candidate who might have beaten Trump. You're right that we don't live in a "true democracy." We live in a republic. You should be grateful - it's the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
2. California is a state, not a "big city," so your comparison of crime rates is meaningless. You probably don't care about California's high taxes, frivolous litigation or reputation as the worst state for business, but it's surprising that you apparently don't care that the state has unaffordable housing, the highest poverty rate and the highest economic inequality in America. California's elites live like the Robber Barons of the 1800s, so go ahead and extol their virtues all you want.
August 12th, 2017 at 1:48 PM ^
If you make less than $50,000 a year, as do nearly half of Michiganders, you pay the same or less income taxes in California than in Michigan. It's only high for high earners, because low income brackets are much more progressive. Simple math. People in the $50k-$70k range pay more in California, but not by much. Difference increases dramatically after that. However, California also has much lower than average property tax (hasn't risen since the 1970s), which partially offsets the high housing costs.
I'm saying California's big cities, aka LA and SF, have wayyyyy lower crime than Midwestern and Southern cities (Detroit, New Orleans, Atlanta, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc., etc.).
Your ignorance of political systems is also astonishing. France is also a republic, (their government's official name is the Fifth Republic of France) and most republics allow the popular vote winners to win the election for their executive office. The Electoral College was formed for only two reasons, neither of which apply anymore. The first was slavery. Southern States achieved the 3/5ths compromise because in a popular vote they'd have much less power because slaves of course couldn't vote. However, the Electoral College allowed the slave population to increase the voting share of the Southern states. The second reason was that electors would knowingly break with the will of the voters if they were deemed to "know better", but we have completely done away with that norm and that would never be tolerated.
California does have plenty of problems, but it is not near to having the highest poverty rate, it isn't even in the top ten. California has the lowest poverty rate of the three most populous states (Texas is #1 at 17.2%, Florida is #2 at 16.6%, CA #3 at 16.4%). California is #6 for highest Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality), but Florida, Alabama and Louisiana are all higher/more unequal.
9 out of 10 of the highest poverty states voted for Trump (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona). The one exception was New Mexico.
7 out of 10 of the lowest poverty states voted for Clinton (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Hawaii, Massachusetts).
August 12th, 2017 at 2:41 PM ^
You are over-simplifying the arguements about the financial burdens of being in CA by restrcting the discussion to income tax and property taxes. The basic cost of goods and services is much higher than most other states in the country (#3 highest after HI and NY https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/americas-10-most-expensive-states-to-li…). The cost of gasoline is highest in continental US, and almost the same as in HI (http://www.gasbuddy.com/USA). Using $50,000 as an example income is misleading also, since the median income (note, this is not average and is not unduly skewed by the presence of a few billionaires or multimillionaires) in CA is over $60k/year whereas the rest of the country is typically < $50k/year (https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/cb16-158_median…), again indicating a major difference in the relative costs (since the value of a median income worker should be about the same regardless of what state are located).
Your comment about the electoral college origins is false (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/). The three-fifths compromise was for the amount of relative representation within the national legistlature and had nothing to do with who was doing the voting and who they voted for (i.e. it would not have mattered if the election was direct or using the college, not to mention that slaves, women, and many others could not vote nationwide at the time this system was proposed, so your argument is moot anyway). This is basic US history/civics. (Although I do agree that the electoral college is outdated, but for different reasons).
August 13th, 2017 at 10:12 AM ^
The problem is your poor reading comprehension. I referenced high taxes, not just income taxes. The state sales tax is 7.25% with cities being allowed to add to it. In Sacramento it adds up to 8.25%. It's 9.75% in San Francisco. The sales tax is regressive, of course, hurting lower income individuals the most. There are also high corporate taxes and taxes to pay for unemployment insurance and workers' comp. Those costs are passed along to consumers, again hurting low income individuals the most. You are also wrong about property taxes remaining static since 1979. The 1% rate is still in effect but other taxes have been added: parcel taxes, voter approved debt rates, Mello-Roos taxes and assessments. See http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx.
As to France, I didn't say it is a democracy today. Rather, I gave you an example how a democracy, or mob rule, isn't the best form of government. I assumed you knew the French Revolution occurred in the eighteenth century.
As crg points out, you are also wrong about the electoral college. The 3/5 provision determined representation in Congress. Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person instead of a full person actually weakened the slave-owning states by reducing their representation in Congress. That's a side issue. I don't know why you brought it up. For better or worse it is the system we use which is why it was a complete waste for Hillary to spend millions in Chicago (in a state where she had the electoral votes locked up) and in New Orleans (in a state where she wouldn't get a single electoral vote).
August 11th, 2017 at 8:15 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 8:27 PM ^
you also can`t assume that the so called victim would never lie or exaggerate what happened, if you weren`t there how about going by what the people involved determine what is just.
August 11th, 2017 at 8:32 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 9:02 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 9:13 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 10:02 PM ^
August 12th, 2017 at 9:47 AM ^
August 12th, 2017 at 3:19 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 7:19 PM ^
Hope he learned from it.
Go Blue. Make us proud.
August 11th, 2017 at 7:19 PM ^
Totally fine with him being reinstated. He's paying his price to society for what he did.
August 12th, 2017 at 7:27 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
August 11th, 2017 at 7:26 PM ^
He's paying a price in the legal system. He missed the bowl game and a lot of practices. He may well lose his starting position as a result. Being reinstated doesn't mean he'll be treated like nothing happened. Feel free to think he should pay a heavier price, but I wouldn't downplay what this has cost him.
August 11th, 2017 at 7:26 PM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 7:47 PM ^
Keep reading and we'll tell you.
August 11th, 2017 at 8:19 PM ^
Above seems like a reasonable start.
August 11th, 2017 at 7:31 PM ^