One of the biggest problems with our national debates on subjects like “socialism” is adherents/experts/scholars on the subject aren’t invited. In the case of “socialism,” socialists aren’t. It’s a bit like having a conference on evolution and not inviting any scientists.

So we usually end up with just two sides, neither of which identifies as “socialist,” angrily arguing about something they know all too little about, with one side in particular demonizing it like post-Constantine Christians and all things pagan. The other side, more often than not, confuses “socialism” with “social democracy.”

Sadly, I think Sanders, at least in public, encourages the latter a wee bit.

Socialists know that the USSR wasn’t “socialist.” We know Lenin said he had to install state capitalism to yank Russia into the 20th century and socialism could wait. And the Russians waited and waited and waited, and it never happened there, or anywhere else in the modern world. Socialists also know it’s only happened in small enclaves, like parts of Republican Spain in the 1930s, or the Paris Commune of 1871, or Israeli Kibbutzes of old.

Too many centrists and pretty much all right-wingers think “socialism” equals Stalinism, even though the former is in direct opposition to the latter, and always will be. Socialists know this because socialism is the extension of democracy to include the economy, power is decentralized back to communities, workplaces are democratized, and we the people, not “the state,” own the means of production.

I really wish our media would ask actual socialists when the question is asked what it means. It’s not Stalinism and it’s not Social Democracy. It’s the complete abolition of capitalism and the establishment of democratic self-rule in its stead.

I didn’t catch the 40 time for Stallworth. Did you?

I do remember Jerry Rice ran a 4.6, or a bit higher. But he ended up arguably as the greatest receiver ever.

“Playing speed” obviously counts more. Too bad they can’t time all of these guys in full uniform.

Interesting video overall. Crazy to get 4 HOF guys in one draft. Liked the strategy of finding small school gems. I noticed that the Rams seemed to go that route with their UDFAs. Not all of them. But most of them.

Boiled down, I’m far more angered by Trump and all the people defending him, protecting him, lying for him, than I am at what Russia has done.

Again, I expect the latter. It’s a part of geopolitics. It’s always going to be part of it. But that an American running for office asked for Russian help, received it, exploited it, endlessly lied about it, covered it up, and obstructed investigations into his wrong-doing . . . . that’s not the usual blah blah blah of geopolitical chess. That’s something that, as far as we know, has never happened here before.

Trump and company should be held accountable for this.

Emilia Clarke (Dany) was on some talk show the other night, and while the host couldn’t get her to dish the dirt, she did say this:

Paraphrased: Watch out for the 5th episode. It’s going to be huge. Need to find the biggest TV you can find to watch it.

This would follow their pattern of having amazing episodes, especially, right before the finale.

I have a feeling this one, #4, will set the table. Maybe a small revelation or two. But it won’t be “big.” Still looking forward to it.

zn wrote:

“Pete Carroll marveling after first day with WR D.K. Metcalf about his quick feet and speed with his size. “He’s maybe more unique than we even thought.”

Personally, and I’m probably on another one of those islands on this . . . I would have preferred a pick of Metcalf over Rapp. And I’m guessing the Rams considered it. But knowing they’re loaded at wideout, and safety not so much . . . I think that nixed that.

He’s a 4.3 guy, with excellent athleticism overall, and nearly 6’4″. He’s gonna be able to do what Cooks can’t, as far as win contested catches.

I think I’d rather have Metcalf than Cooks, though I the latter is a very good receiver, and tough, especially considering his size. He plays hard, and we don’t know if Metcalf will in the Pros. The Rams will get some answers twice a year or more. They’ll also face an even bigger receiver, Hakeem Butler, who if someone could draw up the perfect wideout from a physical standpoint, he’d be it.

It was the wrong year for a receiver like that to fall into their laps. The Rams have bigger needs elsewhere. But Metcalf was likely the BPA over Rapp, if that’s the criterion and not “need.”

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Are they due for the same constraints next year?

Next year, at this point, before the 2019 (and 2020) rookies are signed etc, the Rams have nearly 65 M in cap space. That’s assuming a 200 M cap. The 135+ in contracts already on the books includes huge cap hits from Donald, Goff, Gurley, and Cooks. That’s also with Weddle and Matthews counting against the cap, and it’s not clear that either one or both will play next year.

But, the 2020 free agents include Fowler, Whitworth, Brockers, Talib, Littleton, Peters, and Higbee. It’s not clear how many of those 7 will play in 2020, or which ones the Rams will sign. It absolutely won’t be all of them.

…

Thanks, ZN.

Looking ahead to after the next season, but judging from what we know now . . . perhaps not a really smart thing to do . . . I’d bet they try to keep Fowler, Littleton and Peters — if he plays like he did late in the season — and assume that Talib and Whitworth retire. I like Brockers’ game, so I hope they re-sign him. But he’s probably on the bubble and does have a bit of a cap hit. Higbee? I think he’s a solid TE, and hasn’t really been utilized all that much. I suspect, however, he’s on his way out too. He has really good size and is an above average athlete, said to be a really good blocker. They might not find his replacement so easily . . . but who knows?

Anyway, it sounds like they’re in decent shape and should be able to pick up some help in Free Agency next time. The cap seems too tight for that now.

Of course, we won’t know until he steps on the field on Sundays, and even then, it’s gonna take time.

But just based on his athleticism and the videos? Seems like one of the best 7th round picks, ever, for the Rams. At least in the era of 7 rounds.

I think Deacon Jones, for instance, was drafted in the high teens, when the draft was something like 18 rounds. Fewer teams back then, of course, so fewer picks per round. And no comp picks.

Regardless, so far, so good. I hope they get him involved all over the place, including on offense.

wv wrote:

What about the hound? He didnt get kilt did he?

“no assholes, no divas”

I think the Hound made it. He still needs to settle matters with his brother.

wv wrote:

…is GrayWorm dead? I kinda hope so. Nevermuch liked his character. I just never bought into his
great-warrior persona. He just doesn’t have the body for it. I think he’s miscast as a tough, battle-hardened warrior. Reminds me of the frail, skinny Klingons of the early tv-star-trek shows.

If yer gonna cast a Warrior — cast someone with a warrior’s body.

Are ALL the Dothraki dead?

w
v

I’d have to watch the episode again, but I think he survived. Few of his brethren did, if memory serves, and I think all the Dothraki died in that initial charge.

(As I was watching them ride off half-crazed, I expected them to return after a brief pause in the form of the undead. Glad I was wrong. That would have been more of that “too much” thing.)

Agree about the actor. He doesn’t really fit the image of arguably the best fighters in the world of the books . . . though, at times, the Dothraki seem to hold that crown.

Your comment also reminds me of the Netflix Marvel show, Iron Fist, which had all kinds of issues, including casting. The actor playing the lead (a Game of Thrones alumni) was bad enough along those lines, but his chief nemesis (Davos) was even worse. He just wasn’t believable as this awesome Martial Arts expert.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3322310/

Back in my twenties, I was a bouncer for a bit while going to school. The owner of the bar hired a bunch of us based on the premise that he wanted order and protection for customers and merchandise, but he didn’t want mountains guarding the gate. So, pretty much everyone I worked with was really good in Martial Arts, in great shape but just average sized. My own lane was more boxing and wrestling, but I respected the Martial Arts stuff a ton, and knew just enough to get myself into big trouble. So I never tried that out in public.

Anyway, to make a long story short, it’s believable to me that a great fighter could be relatively small, but it’s not if they’re weak.

wv wrote:

====================

Ahhh. I also was confused about the nightking’s dragon showing up alive. So he got re-animated. Its all problematic isnt it. I mean, how many times can he reanimate things? Over and over again? Can he re-animate pieces of things? Fingers? Eyeballs?

I agree on the “too unfair for words” feeling. There were times that was how i was feeling watching it. I dont know whether to give them credit for building that feeling or to criticize it. I guess its what they were goin for given the storyline. But it does raise questions about just how dark is ‘too dark’? Is there such a thing? Is there a limit?

w
v

Sometimes I think writers set up impossibly hopeless conflicts and dilemmas, and it seems they trap themselves in the process. This sometimes necessitates sudden, almost too easy answers that resolve the conflict all at once. In this case, killing the Night King instantly wipes out the entire Army of the Dead, which a few of the characters suspected would happen way back. But then why didn’t they concentrate on all of that from Day One?

Of course, that would have meant the journey itself wasn’t necessary, so writers can’t do that. We’d all be out of work!!

So, yeah. You can go too dark. And then it almost means you have to truncate and over-simplify the way out, instead of perhaps dialing back the impossibility and hopelessness of things, and maybe end the crisis with a bit more complexity and time factored in.

JJ Abrams tends to choose the impossible, hopeless odds, and then the too clever by half resolution. A lot of showrunners follow his lead.

All of that said, my complaints about “too much” made me also think of Tom Hanks and his “There is no crying in zombie killing battles.” So I have to look at it from that angle, too.

All in all, I favor the depiction of epic encounters with monsters and beasts, requiring all kinds of courage and tenacity, but I think you have to give the heroes legit chances to survive. The momentum of the story should be able to work without Deus ex Machinas, in general.

nittany ram wrote:

See, I thought the dragon fight was hard to follow. And it was difficult to tell what the outcome was. Immediately after the fight when John’s dragon sorta crash landed, they never showed it again. However, I’m pretty sure it’s ok. I assumed the Night King’s dragon was dead so I was surprised to see it wreaking havoc inside Winterfell later on.

Apologies, Nittany, if I’m saying something here you already knew:

The Night King reanimated all the dead, including his blue-flame dragon. That’s why he was able to wreak that havoc inside Winterfell later on.

And part of me was just thinking, “Oh, come on!! Enough is enough!!” The fighting was close to too much even before the reanimation — as in, it’s kinda just too unfair for words, going up against an endless horde of zombies. Like, the Rams having to face the Patriots defense without an offensive line and shackles on Goff’s feet.

The refs should have stepped in and flagged the Night King for unsportsman-like reanimations.

I think a lot of this comes down to Gurley’s own attitude about splitting time.

This is a total guess. I have no proof to support the guess. But, IMO, Gurley likely pouted a bit (away from the public) in the past over even the idea of splitting carries, so that factored into his workload. It made it heavier. His pride got in the way. His sense of his own capacity for doing it all got in the way.

(Of course his world-class results made the above more than logical)

Now? I think he fully understands that there is no choice. He’s never going to be a bell-cow running back again. Those days are gone forever, and I think he knows this. Even as recently as the CJ Anderson games prior to the Super Bowl, I think it bothered him. But from the Super Bowl on, I’m betting he’s seen the light.

Long story short: He’s good with the new draft pick and McVay will make this work. They’ll be a dynamic duo — and Brown will add one more excellent back to the mix. Not sure the order of RB2 or RB3. And it may not even matter. But McVay will make it work.

zn wrote:

Rocket and Thor go to Asgard. Skippable. I took time out to see that too and shouldn’t have. But my daughter and I have a standing deal to see the MCU films every opening night.

Thanks again.

Nice tradition to have with your daughter.

I want to see it as soon as possible, but know I won’t make it through the full three hours. I can always see it again, later, via DVD or streaming (to catch the skipped part) . . .

Hope all is well.

WV,

Waaay off topic:

Did you catch my review of the new book, This Life, by Martin Hagglund? I think all the leftists here would love it, but it’s especially right up your alley, I’m betting.

IMO, it’s immensely important philosophy, and he makes a provocative case for democratic socialism along the way. Builds up to it. Takes us on a journey, etc. by critiquing both religion and capitalism.

It’s not as exciting as Game of Thrones, and there aren’t any dragons or zombies in it, at least that I remember, but it’s damn good all the same.