I think it’s all the fault of the numbers. They should never have allowed such chaos. Keep them the way they’ve been since the time of Sargon of Akkad. Back then, your defensive linemen were in the 70s and 80s, linebackers in the 50s and 60s, DBs in the 20s, 30s and 40s, with rare exceptions. Deviation typically resulted in being thrown to the crocodiles, unless Mrs. Sargon saved you.

Let just anyone wear #1 and you’re going to get double punts and worse.

“The country NEEDS a strong Republican Party.”

This is really stupid. The Dems advocate for the continuation of the party determined to destroy the Dems.

A bit of a sidetrack here, but it’s related. How do you view the terms themselves? Oligarchs and oligarchy, plutocrats and plutocracy?

I’ve always thought (like Hedges) of Oligarchy as Rule by the Few, and plutocracy as Rule by the Rich. It’s more complicated than that, of course. And under capitalism, there’s just not an instance of the few ruling the roost without also being rich. So, they’re perhaps oligarchs and plutocrats? Which also raises more questions.

Is a politician with temporary power over this or that part of government an “oligarch,” or does she or he have to have lasting power over things? Are the oligarchs the folks behind the scenes, pulling the strings of the pols? Or the pols themselves? Are McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, McCarthy, et al “oligarchs?” Or their donors? Both/and? The whole sad lot of them?

And what would constitute a “plutocrat” these days? In the past, one would likely say the Vanderbilts and the Astors, but maybe not plain old rich people without direct power over events . . . or the desire to control those events, etc.

I haven’t done any serious research on the matter, but I think 99% of the folks in Congress are millionaires many times over, with some in the 9-figure realm. But they have 10-figure, 11-figure, and 12-figure folks backing/controlling them.

Anyway, what’s your take on who’s what and why, and is it absurd, in your opinion, for me to even ask such questions?

;>)

Good response to my far too many responses, Zooey.

;>)

To walk things back a bit: I actually do see a useful space for that oligarchy/autocracy paradigm. It also reminds me a lot of what happened in Germany, where conservative oligarchs put Hitler in power, thinking they could control him. That obviously failed. But what a lot of people forget is this: eventually, German oligarchs and Hitler the autocrat made peace of a kind, and they coexisted, and the oligarchs made massive fortunes with Hitler’s help and blessing . . . until, etc. As in, for the most part, they weren’t in opposition. Exceptions, and so on. But for the most part.

Back to Hedges’ point regarding our current situation. I’m probably misreading him (and others), but I get the sense that he’s setting up the opposition like this:

Dem/Oligarchs versus GOP/Autocrats — with, as you say he notes, the autocrats being worse. To me, this ignores the massive influence of billionaires/corporate America on the GOP and Trump, and paints a limited narrative which the GOP also tries to paint . . . a kind of Wall Street versus Main Street thingy, with the evil corporate Dems versus the god-fearing main-streeter Republicans. Hedges and company obviously don’t buy into much of the GOP narrative, and they do see the Trumpified GOP as lining up with autocracy. But I often get the impression that they’re more pissed off at corporate Dems than GOP autocrats. And, again, I think they forget that the GOP is controlled by oligarchs (and plutocrats) too. It’s not a Dem-only toxin. Both/and.

Again, I may be misreading them. But my sense is that this dichotomy influences their push to be dismissive of stuff like Russiagate, Ukraine, even the ongoing coup, and to basically suggest (or say openly) that none of the investigations into Trump, past, present, and future, are legit cuz they’re just oligarchical machinations.

More later . . . Your thoughts?

Just read the rest of it. It gets a lot better as he goes.

Astute commentary on autocracy, which has always been a strength of Hedges. One of the best journalists on the subject, ever, in fact.

It’s actually almost strong enough to make up for what came before it. But, this part may be at the heart of his mistaken assumptions:

We must defy the oligarchs as well as the autocrats. If we replicate the cowardice of the liberal class, if we sell out to the oligarchs as a way to blunt the rise of autocracy, we will discredit the core values of a civil society and fuel the very autocracy we seek to defeat.

I think this is a false choice, and I think it’s also foundational to his desire to all but dismiss investigations into Trump. It’s just not an either/or thing. It’s not ever “If you support the various investigations into Trump, you sell out to the oligarchs!” It’s self-evidently not. We can defy oligarchs and autocrats, and hold them all accountable. In fact, the fear of appearing to support oligarchy, if that fear provokes our dismissal of trying to hold Trump accountable, is a victory for oligarchy, flat out.

Hedges seems to forget that people can be both (oligarch and autocrat), and our system make it even likely for them to coexist. He also seems to forget that the vast majority of those in power who support, defend, and protect Trump are oligarchs and plutocrats.

Thanks for posting the article, Zooey.

A lot there to unpack, and I didn’t read the entire thing yet, cuz it immediately sparked wonder. Again. Wonder at how Trump has managed to make otherwise sensible, intelligent people lose their minds. A wonder at the bizarre stubbornness apparent in some leftists who simply can’t even contemplate the possibility that Trump is just guilty, full stop. He’s just guilty of what he’s been accused off, full stop, and that it’s a Trumpian/GOP talking point to distract and confuse us all by making this into a “deep state” affair.

Hedges writes:

So, for example, censorship is wrong, unless the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop are censored, or Donald Trump is banished from social media. Conspiracy theories are wrong, unless those theories, such as the Steele dossier and Russiagate, can be used to damage the autocrat. The misuse of the legal system and law enforcement agencies to carry out personal vendettas are wrong, unless those vendettas are directed at the autocrat and those who support him. Giant tech monopolies and their monolithic social media platforms are wrong, unless those monopolies use their algorithms, control of information and campaign contributions to ensure the election of the oligarch’s anointed presidential candidate, Joe Biden.

1. What censorship, regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop? And what was the rationale behind any investigation into that laptop? If Russiagate was all supposedly an invention of “oligarchs,” what was Trump’s attempt to plant evidence on Biden’s son, while Trump was president? And Trump was banished from two or three social media platforms because he repeatedly broke their rules, literally fomented violence, radically increased death threats against other Americans, and spread dangerous lies about Covid and the election. He was actually coddled and pampered far too long and kept on those platforms long after he should have been banned.

2. The Steele Dossier wasn’t a conspiracy theory. It was a collection of data on Trump, none of which has been disproven, evah, and the only “conspiracy theory” in that case is the one that claims it was the reason for the Mueller investigation. It wasn’t. It was a less than minor piece of the puzzle, with the main spark being Trump’s own personnel, like George Papadopoulos, and his own actions, which freaked out intelligence officials. The real conspiracy theory is the one that claims all of these Republicans, career officials, diplomats, intel agencies from around the world, and reporters from around the world, managed to meet in a room and try to bring down Trump. And Hedges, among others, fails to deal with the fact that Mueller held back on multiple fronts, like investigating Trump’s finances and financial ties, which would have sunk him. If there was this international cabal of “oligarchs” trying to bring him down, why hold back?

3. Hedges provides zero proof that any agency or agency personnel carried out a “personnel vendetta” against Trump. He just throws it out there as a part of larger generalized accusation of hypocrisy in the section quoted. There’s no evidence that any of that happened, though we do know for a fact, and Trump told us repeatedly in public, that he constantly went after his enemies.

4. Now, the last part may be the most absurd accusation of all. That Big Tech supposedly used its powers to appoint Biden. In reality, study after study has shown that those algorithms favor right-wing narratives, including far-right conspiracy theories to this day about Covid and the Election. And Big Tech despises “socialism” and leftists in general. Try to set up a news feed on your phone and see how rarely actual leftists show up.

In short, Hedges, in the above section, makes bad assumption after bad assumption, without any factual foundation or logic to support them, and . . . well, to say the least, I find this disappointing.

The suggestion is — as it is with the Greenwalds and company — that all the investigations into Trump were/are bogus, and just one more example of the Establishment lashing out against its perceived threats. Knowingly or unknowingly, they echo Trump/GOP bogus, obviously self-serving talking points.

Zooey,

Have you ever gone to a game in LA? Was wondering about the crowd and crowd noise. I’ve only seen them in SF (twice), and all the other times via TV. But in recent years it seems like they don’t get a lot of home-game advantages from crowd noise, etc. At least judging from the TV stuff. But the announcers were saying it was extremely loud yesterday.

As a native Cali guy, what’s your take on the potential for 12th-man effects at So-Fi this season?

Side note: The folks on Get up! this morning were saying the Rams are the best team in football now. I agree.

Zooey wrote:

Why are conservatives always posting pictures of capitalism to prove that socialism is bad?

Oh, and this is that pithy, snarky, Twitter-friendly way of putting things . . . I wish I had that gene.

Well done, Zooey.

I wish Goff well.

Personally, I still think the Rams gave up way too much for Stafford, though I think he’s a better QB than Goff. Better arm talent, especially. Has shown some surreal toughness throughout his career, too.

It’s kinda like this:

I really like cheeseburgers, if they’re lean, grass-fed, high-quality, etc. But I love a good steak and lobster dinner. I’m just not going to trade you my cheeseburger and my house for your steak and lobster dinner. I’m good with eating my modest cheeseburger in my modest house, thank you very much. I think I can “win” with that combo too.

Yes. Helping each other, even in the face of the inevitable fade to black. “Grace” in the non-religious sense. Living by it, bestowing it on others. That’s how we break the cycle. That’s how we guarantee a “win” even if we ultimately lose.

And I think there is a great deal more meaning and heart to it if we do it without any sense of payoff or benefit, macro or micro, come what may. We just do it, because. We just do.

Which, again, brings me back to where we went so wrong, and had the chance to go so right . . . moving from feudalism to capitalism, from steady-state, localized, small-scale production for need and use and functionality; production for ourselves and each other, albeit under the thumb of aristocrats . . . to production for an even harder task master, the cold, heartless “market” and the Future, with a new type of aristocrat in charge.

If only we had cast off the masters, all of them, but retained small-scale, localized, steady-state, use-value production, for each other . . . linked that , one democratic cooperative to another, one cooperative community to another, ever wider, and wider, etc. etc. Still no masters, anywhere. Still producing for each other, not profits, not the invisible hand. If only we had managed to keep the economic sphere from dominating everything else, I think it would have been a thousand times easier to help one another as a matter of course — in all spheres.

Night, all.

Zooey wrote:

We needed Sanders decades ago. We’re past that now.

We’re now looking at a grim future no matter what. Which grim future is better?

I don’t know. But like flood waters coursing through a German town, there isn’t much hope of directing the current.

So now I’m finished with similes for the day.

I agree with all of that.

Again, one could easily say that because neither the Dems nor the Republicans have solved the problem of human mortality yet, they’re just the same. No diff. We can zoom out so far, there really are no differences, so nihilism seems the best course.

Then, again, we could fight for the most dignified, least painful, least miserable or cruel exit from the stage, and that can be our guide. To me, I actually do see major differences between the two parties (and the people who run them) along those line.

If we really are truly fooked, and it looks like we are, I’d rather not have to listen to serial-lying, far-right bullies, beloved by white supremacists, gas on about how the “deep state” is out to get them, and how “they” won’t replace whitey, and how “the far left” is supposedly destroying America, and it’s all “antifa’s” fault, and critical race theory’s, and blah blah blah.

If we’re on our way out, I want to go with non-fascist tunes playing in the wind.

I think there’s a danger in “they’re all the same” thinking, and it’s the proverbial two-edged sword to boot. We can make a case, for instance, when it comes to environmental destruction, that super-progressive action, short of replacing capitalism outright, is the same as centrist action, in the long run. Both routes will still render the planet uninhabitable for most life-forms in the not too distant future. It will put us on different time-tables, and the numbers of preventable early deaths will differ, but the end result is the same.

As in, if there’s no discernible difference between a Biden and a Trump, eco-wise, then there’s no discernible difference between a Sanders and a Biden.

Yeah, I know, blasphemy! But when you zoom out far enough, all the world’s a blur.

(More in the next post)

wv wrote:

====

If both men, are promoting policies that are World-killers.
Biosphere-enders. How can we say, one is really worse than
the other? I dont get that argument, anymore.

The words ‘centrist’ and ‘fascist’ and racist etc,
just dont mean a lot IF — IF — you think they are both
world-killers.

Maybe the difference is, you and zn, just dont see
Biden/trump as biosphere-killers.

w
v

WV,

Trump opened up millions of formerly protected acres (most of which had been saved by Obama) to fossil fuel extraction. He took us out of the Paris Accords. He seeded his administration with billionaires with direct ties to the fossil fuel industry, and with countless ideologues who thought, as he does, that Climate Change is a Chinese hoax. He put coal lobbyists in charge of the Interior and the EPA. He pushed for a massive increase in fossil fuel extraction offshore. He destroyed countless regulations designed to protect the environment, and took the side of corporate polluters against the planet without exception.

If that had been allowed to stand, literally millions of humans and countless other life-forms would have perished down the road.

Biden has reversed most of the above policies, and at least promised to tackle 99% of the rest. Does he go far enough? Of course not. Not even close. Hell, the GND doesn’t go far enough, and we know Biden won’t go for that. But I think it’s a mistake to view Trump’s ultra-aggressive destruction of the environment as equivalent to Biden’s (far too) modest attempt to right the ship. The difference between the two positions means the difference between losing tens of millions of lives, or hundreds of thousands.

It obviously should be zero. No lives lost. No one left behind. No more Sixth Extinction. We obviously need to make radical changes if we’re to prevent the Sixth Extinction from including us too. But to the individuals who will live or die based on the differences between the two agendas, it means the world. They definitely wouldn’t say “they’re just the same.”

And another — again, separating them because of the filter.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/217577/outlays-for-defense-and-forecast-in-the-us/

Interesting dialogue between youze guys, regarding Biden vs. Trump.

IMO, Trump is significantly worse than any president since Andrew Jackson, and the most vile human being ever to sit in the White House. Biden is “meh.” He’s the centrist we basically expected, so he obviously falls way short of leftist dreams and hopes. But Trump was a fascist’s dream come true, and the worst president on the environment, perhaps ever. He seems to take pleasure in all of his destruction, and isn’t finished with his coup attempt(s) yet.

Let them drink bleach! he basically said. So he has the deaths of hundreds of thousands on his hands — above and beyond his escalation of wars/bombings in Yemen and elsewhere. To me, there’s never been such stark differences between past and present administrations, as far as damage to the earth, to society, to the future.

WV, could you elaborate on your comments regarding Biden’s “rebuilding” of the CIA and the police? I wasn’t aware that it was happening, and I didn’t see any indications that Trump reduced their powers one iota, or their budgets. In fact, compared with Obama’s budgeting, Trump increased them a great deal more. If I read the graph below correctly, the intel budget increased more than 12 billion under Trump, and fell a coupla billion under Obama.

https://fas.org/irp/budget/

Overall military spending also fell under Obama, and rose significantly under Trump.

(I’d add another link for that, but it likely won’t make it past the spam check.)