Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantI said over at the Herd, when asked if we were okay with Goff over Wentz, that this wasn’t ever my concern. The issue for me wasn’t making sure we got one QB or the other. I thought and still think they’re both close enough that it really doesn’t matter, though I leaned toward Wentz as the better of the two.
My problem was with the trade itself. I’m likely in a minority among Rams fans — perhaps even football fans in general — but I think trading away the future for one player is generally a mistake, unless and until the team in question is just that one player away from being a great team. The Rams are far from there. Even where they excel the most — on defense — they have some holes and some places in need of upgrades. They aren’t “dominant.” And on offense? Yes, they have dealt with poor QB play for years and years, and it needs to end. But they also have major needs at WR, TE, center, a backup option at running back, and trading away so many picks made it very difficult to tackle one or two of those, and impossible to deal with both over the next two years or so.
This was my thinking pre-draft. Post-draft, I think they scored at TE, at least if Higbee can stay out of trouble. At wideout, I think Cooper and Thomas provide solid depth, but are not upgrades to the starting unit, even if we’re talking about the slot. That’s basically where Tavon Austin fits best. They still don’t have a legit #1 who scares any defense, and the same goes for #2. Austin, however, has grown into an excellent slot guy, with multiple formation skills.
They did nothing to help their D in the draft. They have serious needs at corner, still, and at DE, with aging starters and backups in Hayes and Sims. They need another DT — drafting Billings may well have solved that, but oh well. Who plays free safety?
To make a long story short, I wish they had kept all of their picks, even traded down a bit in Round One, selected Cook or Hackenberg, and addressed their weaknesses beyond QB. Just my take. I know it’s not a popular one.
🙂
Billy_TParticipantbnw,
The “pursuit of happiness” is not a requirement at all. It’s an option, one that should be available to all, as long as you don’t harm others. But it’s not a requirement. The real key is to put aside all of our preconceptions, the ones we’ve been indoctrinated in for centuries, and those that are more recent.
All of them are fictional. The concept of money, markets, capitalism, religion, nation-states — all of these are imagined orders, imaginery orders that we’ve accepted as the norm, or natural, and they’re not. They don’t exist in nature. We invented them. Which means we can invent something quite different, and imagine quite different fictions and implement them. It’s up to us.
Yuval Harari, in his fantastic TED talk, talks about this, though indirectly.
So, let’s start there. Let’s start with a blank slate. There is actually no reason, whatsoever, that we ever had to burden ourselves with a lifetime of endless work, and with massive inequalities based on more absurd fictions of wildly different valuation of our time. There is absolutely no sane reason why we accept the system of capitalism, which is based on slavery, and guarantees massive inequality. There is no legitimate, rational, logical or sane reason why we willingly accept a system which is based on the theft of our personal production, in order to radically inflate the wealth of the few. There is actually no rational, valid, legitimate reason why (for instance) a hedge fund manager makes billions and teachers, nurses, social workers or poets make a fraction of a fraction as much.
Who decides that pay? A tiny, tiny fraction of the population, all of whom benefit ginormously from that decision/delusion, at massive cost to the majority. Why does the majority accept this? Why did it ever accept this?
There is no “natural” support for any of it, and there are thousands of better ways to organize society than the one we have now. I have several ideas for far better systems . . . .
Billy_TParticipantHey, Nittany and PA.
Hope all is well in the Keystone state.
Speaking of witches. Recently read a fascinating history of the the Salem witch trials, by Stacy Schiff. It takes a little bit to get used to her style — I’ve read two other bios from her, and this is quite different — but it’s worth it. Goes into great detail and depth about context, regional history, background, etc. etc. Tries to tell the story as if from the point of view of the accusers and the accused, and really presents a sense of the mass hysteria and crackup, without being judgmental. Schiff pretty much leaves that up to the reader.
Billy_TParticipantI just read that article today. I had never heard of jacobinmag before.
I thought about posting it here myself, and asking wv’s thoughts since West Virginia gets a healthy mention in the article.
I’m still mulling over the argument put forward. I do think there is a pretty condescending attitude to minimum wage workers in society. I read a lot of disrespectful stuff a month or two ago when the minimum wage increase was announced in California. Honestly, a lot of the opposition to increasing the minimum wage was not based in economics, but in contempt for the job and the people who do it.
Hey, Zooey, Jacobin has been one of my go-to zines for awhile now. Young, fresh. Great leftist perspective. It gives me hope that there may well be a true left in America, even after the last of the old “new left” floats away on that ancient iceberg.
As for the argument. From my viewpoint, today’s “liberal” is closer to yesterday’s conservative. Corey Robin has written some great stuff about how the right has “disciplined” liberals from at least Reagan on, and that, whether they know it or not — usually they don’t — they’ve embraced most of the conservative agenda by osmosis. About the only thing that really differentiates them now are the cultural issues, views on race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc. They’re so close on matters of war, the surveillance state, the economy, capitalism, there’s not really a dime’s worth of difference. It’s on matters of race and so on that there is still a significant gap.
So, to make a long story short: Liberals fall waaay short of being any kind of real alternative to conservatism because they refuse to deal with massive class divisions, and they support capitalism just as much as conservatives. I reject liberalism primarily because of this. I side with them on racial, ethnic, gender, sexuality issues . . . but I think they’re absolutely wrong on the best way to close those gaps. Rather than making it easier for the 1% to look more like America, rather than making it easier for women and minorities to climb proverbial ladders of success . . . . I think we need to get rid of the climb itself. True egalitarianism and society based on full democracy, including the economy, where all hierarchies are shattered, all pyramids pulled down, also takes care of the ginormous racial, gender and sexual gaps. By definition.
However, if we leave capitalism in place, those gaps will only grow bigger — even if we do have more minorities and women in power. Cuz we still have neck-breaking hierarchies in place.
The key is the flatten the pyramids. Let people actually live their lives in the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of staying out of the poor house.
Billy_TParticipantHey, Dak, Zooey, Nittany and company. Hope all is well.
Billy_TParticipantI’ll probably vote for Stein, but it will be more of a protest vote than an endorsement of her beliefs.
I understand being pissed about the Wall Street bailout in ’08, but that’s not a reason to continue hemorrhaging money. At some point, doesn’t this country have to deal with its deficit? The debt and a failure to have any money to respond to future problems scares me almost as much as climate change. In both cases, we’re making quite a mess for the next generations.
Cal, I agree we should reduce the deficit and the debt. But the way to do that is not to cut spending. That kills jobs. That hurts millions of people, immediately. The way to balance the budget and start to pay off the debt is to raise taxes on the rich — and just the rich. Just the 1%. They’ve seen the overwhelming lion’s share of tax cuts since 1964 and Johnson, and the rich utilize far and away the most public resources. It’s not close.
And for those who say we could tax the 1% at 100% and there wouldn’t be enough money, consider this: Americans had total income of 14 trillion — that we know about — in 2014. The richest 1% now bring in roughly 25% of all income, though some estimates say it’s as low as 20%. If we use the latter, just the 1% alone bring in roughly 2.8 trillion a year in income. If we raised taxes back up to where they were from FDR through Kennedy, their effective rate would be roughly 55% on a 91% marginal top rate. They currently pay in the neighborhood of 25% effectively, on a top rate of 39.6%. So you’re talking an additional revenue flow of well over 700 billion a year — and this is just personal income we know about. The infamous Panama Papers have confirmed what most of us already knew: Trillions are untaxed and hidden.
IMO, Sanders goes wrong on the tax issue, because he’s not willing to only raise taxes on the rich. He does want to raise their rates, and corporate rates, but he also is talking about small increases for the working class, too. Wrong way to go, in my view. With inequality at obscenely immoral levels, it’s time to use one of the few tools we have to try to at least slightly mitigate for capitalism’s despicable, destructive, unsustainable internal dynamics. It’s the least we can do, etc.
Billy_TParticipantVoted for her in 2012. I like her even more than Bernie.
Of course, she doesn’t have a chance. But I’ll likely vote for her this time, too, if Sanders can’t pull off a miracle and win the nom.
To me, neither major party is legitimate. They’ve formed a pretty destructive, terrible monopoly on power, and until it’s broken, the most powerful nation on earth will continue to be the most dangerous, the most likely to start a war, the most reactionary on an huge range of issues, etc. etc.
I wish we had a real socialist alternative. Big time Green. Unafraid to be anticapitalist. Preferably with a very strong libertarian socialist core in the lead. One focused on an updated vision set forth by people like William Morris, Elisee Reclus, Petr Kropotkin, among others. The Paris Commune of 1871, updated, adapted to 2016 and beyond. Small is beautiful. Cooperative economies, locally autonomous, federated. All democratic. The entire economy democratized.
Good book on the Paris Commune, btw: Communal Luxury, Kristin Ross.
Billy_TParticipantbnw,
Don’t recognize the handle. Did you post with another years ago? Haven’t been on the Huddle in — am guessing — five years? Maybe more.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, TSRF.
Hope all is well.
Billy_TParticipantHey, WV.
Finishing up The Magic Mountain, by Thomas Mann. Taking a break from the political books for a bit. Am determined, however, to read a lot more, and write a lot more. Not being as productive along those lines as I should be.
And you? What’s on your reading list?
Billy_TParticipantThanks, Zack. Appreciate the welcome, and will likely check out the football forums, too.
-
AuthorPosts
