ONE of the most compelling news stories of the week so far has been President Trump’s desire to buy Greenland.

One thing is certain, you never know what this unpredictable president is going to say or tweet next, so I suppose we should be too surprised when he talks about buying Greenland.

I guess I’d better talk a little about Greenland because I don’t think the largest island in the world is much discussed in the public school system.

Greenland is northeast of Canada and partly within the Arctic Circle. It is mostly covered by snow and ice and has a population of roughly 55,000 people. There are no roads on the island, which is owned by Denmark, except in the few towns and cities.

Greenland is about 25 percent the size of the continental United States and, like Northern Alaska, is dark much of the winter.

So why would Trump want to spend our hard-earned tax dollars to buy an island that lies mostly beneath a glacier? It sure beats me, but I’ve been trying to figure it out.

Maybe he’s been listening to the environmentalists and is getting worried about climate change. If the lower 48 states get too hot, maybe we could ship ice down from Greenland to cool things off.

Then when all the glaciers on Greenland melt, we could turn the island into productive farmland. And when the ocean rises above Miami, we can rebuild the city on Greenland, which may be tropical by then.

Democrats have a more sinister view of Trump’s proposal. They believe he wants to deport all the illegal aliens there.

I personally think it would be smarter to buy Mexico. Then many of the illegal aliens would become American citizens and the immigration problem would be solved.

Unfortunately for Trump, Denmark has said that Greenland is not for sale, so the point is moot.

But we haven’t approached Mexico yet, so one day we could have New Mexico and Old Mexico as states.

I’d rather live in Old Mexico than Greenland.

Let’s move on.

I’m wondering if I should buy my Super Bowl tickets now so I don’t miss the Redskins’ last game in February.

Why, of course they’re going to the Super Bowl this year. Just because they don’t have a quarterback doesn’t mean that they can’t compete with the top dogs in the National Football League. How valuable is a quarterback anyway?

Washington has not looked good in its first two preseason games, but maybe there is still hope. A couple of weeks ago, fans were saddened to learn that Sonny Jurgensen is leaving the Redskins’ broadcasting booth. Maybe that’s because the 85-year-old quarterback is going to make a comeback.

The Redskins sure need to find somebody to guide their team this year and if Jurgensen turns down the job, maybe they can bring Brett Farve out of retirement yet again.

It sure looks like another long year for Washington, which always seems to be looking for a quarterback in August.

On second thought, I think I’ll hold off on my Super Bowl tickets until after tonight’s game with the Atlanta Falcons.

While the Redskins are involved in their preseason struggles, the Washington Nationals are rolling. They have played good ball since the first of June.

The one thing I don’t like, however, is this business of dancing in the dugout after home runs. They don’t look like major league ballplayers, but rather 21-year-olds in a saloon at 2 in the morning.

These shenanigans are bush league and opposing players have been taking note of this unprofessional behavior. Fifty years ago, if you danced in the dugout after a homer the opposing pitcher would have put you on your backsides the next time you came to the plate.

This dancing business is showing up the opposing team and it is not going to win the Nats any brownie points with the rest of the league.

Let’s act like grown men, guys.

Get our daily Headlines Newsletter

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Donnie Johnston:

djohn40330@aol.com

Recommended for you

Load comments