I took it like this:

It makes no sense to ask yes or no to two different positions at the same time. They need to be asked separately to make any sense.

Are you a capitalist, yes or no?
Are you a socialist, yes or no?

But not together. That’s like asking are you left or right handed, yes or no.

The second level of dumb is asking people if they’re a capitalist or not. So few Americans are, it’s always going to be misleading and erroneous when a majority answers yes. What they really mean to say is that they support the capitalist system, not that they qualify as being a capitalist.

You aren’t a capitalist if you don’t have capital, and very few people have it. You then have to invest that capital in a business venture, purchasing labor power to produce commodities for sale, the surplus value of which you appropriate for yourself, as if you did all the work.

Roughly speaking, less than 3% of the country can accurately claim to be “capitalists.”

InvaderRam wrote:

zn wrote:

“[W]e’ve talked a little bit about the flexibility that Michael Brockers does give you to play nose and five,” Snead said. “Then it gets into, do we add anybody else during free agency or the draft? And what his flexibility allows you to do is to pick the best player and not necessarily, ‘We’ve got to have a nose tackle,’ because, hey, maybe the best five technique will move down. So it does give you some flexibility and that’s what we are going to do there.”

that settles it.

it’s either lawrence or tillery with the first pick.

I’ve never understood the Rams’ seeming reluctance to stick a true hogmolly in the middle, especially given their relatively small linebackers.

Someone like Lawrence would take up serious space, open things up for Donald, and protect the linebackers too — give them room to move.

Donald is likely the best D player in the league, and maybe by a good margin, but he obviously can’t do it all himself. He needs help. A 6’4″, 342 immovable object would go a long, long way in providing that.

Phillips, of course, doesn’t run a traditional 34, but the current personnel on the D require a traditional hogmolly like Ngata or Wolfork in their primes. They would be the pivot point for the D and set the table for everyone else to run amok.

And, because I’m a very greedy fan, I want that plus a tall, fast-twitch, scary-fast edge rusher to pair with Fowler too.

This year, the draft probably only gets the Rams one of those things. DT is a great place to start.

Slightly OT:

Did you see my recommendations for two very recent science books?

Have you read them and do you know the authors? Both focus primarily on evolutionary science.

The Tangled Tree, by David Quammen
The Goodness Paradox, by Richard Wrangham.

Both are seriously fascinating. My guess is someone with a science background would get even more out of them.

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Tangled-Tree/David-Quammen/9781476776620

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/530240/the-goodness-paradox-by-richard-wrangham/9781101870907/

Torn labrum? Wow. I have one now. It’s freakin painful just to reach for a book. The range of motion is seriously limited.

I can’t imagine having to play on the defensive line with that injury.

. . .

Was hoping the Rams would get Morse. It may well be that their cap space is too small to add anyone until a few more rounds of signings.

Not really unhappy they lost Joyner. But losing Saffold, if it happens, will hurt that line. He’s probably their best run-blocker and is seriously stout. Might be the strongest guy on the team.

They probably needed to re-sign Fowler, but as mentioned above, that won’t change the need for getting another edge or two.

It likely won’t come to this, but I’d be seriously conflicted if Lawrence and Burns were there for the Rams at #31. I’d love to have both of them on the team and it would be hard to choose. Probably Burns, by a nose. If they get Shelton, that makes the decision easier.

They have more holes to fill than I had hoped.

I think his on the field production warrants a First Rounder, clearly.

His age, perhaps, knocks that down to a Second.

His public comments knocks that down to a Third.

The Raiders got a “steal,” if AB let’s his play on the field do his talking.

And then there’s this: Dore blasts mainstream reporters from the comfort of his video room. But these same reporters receive death threats constantly for their reporting — here and overseas. Trump, at his rallies, for instance, points them out and they get death threats.

All over the world, reporters face this, and many are actually killed. It happens often in Russia.

Yeah, corporate media steer them away from investigations into selected corporations. And that’s terrible for all of us. But it’s far too easy for someone like Jimmy Dore, whom no one sees as a threat to power, to slam them, having never walked in their moccasins.

Do I wish they could report the truth, without restraint? Of course. I despise our capitalist system and its effects. But I think it’s immensely unfair, and naive, to suggest that reporters who write stories critical of the most powerful man on earth are necessarily cowards and just doing the bidding of plutocrats and oligarchs. They’re actually going against a large set of plutocrats and oligarchs in the process. What they do is dangerous, and trashing it doesn’t help one single poor person on earth, or the earth itself.

I hope Brockers takes Suh’s spot, but adds some weight in the off-season. I think he played too slim last year.

I’m also hoping they draft Dexter Lawrence from Clemson, and work him into the rotation. He’s my first choice for #31, with Brian Burns being the second. Unfortunately, it may well be that both players are already gone.

I’ll be disappointed if they go Safety or Center there, unless the players at those spots are the obvious BPA/value. Would rather they fix those issues via FA, though.

Want the Rams to get lucky and find an elite-level DT or Edge. IMO, the draft is the best way to get there and, generally speaking, the least costly.

Excellent article by Paul Waldman on the same subject:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.196551af79ee

The dishonest smearing of Ilhan Omar

Excerpt:

In what is surely the most shameful decision of her current term as speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has decided that the time has come for the House to rebuke Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for things she didn’t actually say, and ideas she didn’t actually express. In the process, Pelosi and other Democrats are helping propagate a series of misconceptions about anti-Semitism, Israel, and U.S. political debate.

I’m going to try to bring some clarity to this issue, understanding how difficult it can be whenever we discuss anything that touches on Israel.

To be clear, I do this as someone who was raised in an intensely Zionist family with a long history of devotion and sacrifice for Israel, but who also — like many American Jews — has become increasingly dismayed not only by developments in Israel but by how we talk about it here in the United States.

In the latest round of controversy, Omar said during a town hall, regarding U.S. policy toward Israel, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” This comment was roundly condemned by members of Congress and many others for being anti-Semitic. Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) called her statement “a vile anti-Semitic slur” and accused her of questioning “the loyalty of fellow American citizens.”

Pelosi then announced that the House would vote on a resolution which, while not mentioning Omar by name, is clearly meant as a condemnation of her. It contains multiple “whereas” statements about the danger of accusing Jews of “dual loyalty.”

So let’s talk about this idea of “dual loyalty,” and how it does and doesn’t relate to Omar’s comments. For many years, Jews were routinely accused of having dual loyalty, to both the United States and Israel, as a way of questioning whether they were truly American and could be trusted to do things such as serve in sensitive national security positions.

That charge was anti-Semitic, because it was used to allege that every Jew was suspect, no matter what they thought about Israel, and that they could not be fully American because they were assumed to have too much affection for another country. It wasn’t about the particulars of U.S. policy or what Jews at the time were advocating; it was about who they (allegedly) were, their identity.

Now, back to Omar. Here’s the truth: The whole purpose of the Democrats’ resolution is to enforce dual loyalty not among Jews, but among members of Congress, to make sure that criticism of Israel is punished in the most visible way possible. This, of course, includes Omar. As it happens, this punishment of criticism of Israel is exactly what the freshman congresswoman was complaining about, and has on multiple occasions. The fact that no one seems to acknowledge that this is her complaint shows how spectacularly disingenuous Omar’s critics are being.

You may have noticed that almost no one uses “dual loyalty” as a way of questioning whether Jews are loyal to the United States anymore. Why has it almost disappeared as an anti-Semitic slur? Because, over the last three decades, support for Israel has become increasingly associated with conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party.

Zooey wrote:

joemad wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Because the Lakers are the only team in the NBA that actually matters.

Dude, Paula Abdul is no longer a cheerleader, Jack Nicholson and Diane Cannon no longer have their butts in the Forum….

Dr Buss is dead and so are the Lakers.. they won’t even make the 8th seed this year……

without searching DUCK DUCK GO, Does anyone even know the name of the current Laker Head Coach? I’ll give you a clue, he was a Warrior assistant and his dad won a ring as a back up center vs Paula Abdul;’s showtime team……

BTW I do hope the Lakers make the 8th seed so the Warriors can sweep them…….. these are not Chris Mullens nor Sleepy Floyd’s Warrior teams….

Listen. Your bitterness and envy have left your soul a mere cinder. I see it all the time.

You know, deep in that ashpit of a heart, that you will not live to see the Warriors hang their 16th Championship banner in the rafters – as I have done with the Lakers.

I say this as a diehard Lakers’ fan, as already mentioned:

Yes, they’ll likely be stuck in mediocrity, because of their “win now at all cost” mentality. For far too long, they’ve been drafting poorly when they do have an early pick, and trade too much away for aging veterans. Yes, they choose well late in the 1st and early 2nd, but they keep blowing lottery picks (Lonzo), or let them walk for nothing (Randle).

It’s likely the fan-base is driving them to do this. That fan-base refuses to accept rebuilding phases, even when their necessity is beyond obvious.

I want them to build the team with a young core, and find key vets to balance this out. How much longer does LeBron even want to play, much less with his current level of excellence? While he is supposedly crazy good about keeping in shape, Father Time never loses, especially in a sport like basketball.

I would, however, sell the farm for one player: Giannis Antetokounmpo. He’s just 24, and he’s getting better all the time.

I was soooo pizzed off the way the Dems, with minor reservations, threw Omar under the bus. She said nothing wrong, and nothing “anti-Semitic” in the slightest.

Apparently, it’s now verbotten to be critical of lobbying groups, even lobbying groups for other countries. Well, certain countries, that is.

OMG!! She said AIPAC has undue influence on American politicians!! Get the smelling salts and where’s my fainting couch!!

Personally, I’d ban any lobbying group from DC that directly or indirectly sends money to any Congress critter, via bundling or any other means. No exceptions. Individual donations only, capped at $250. All bundling, of any kind, would be against the law.

Want to influence law-makers? Write an Op-Ed. Use diplomatic channels with full transparency all citizens can see. But no backroom meetings. No closed-door meetings of any kind.

The Dems should have stuck by Omar and told the GOP to fuck off.

I can see how it would be annoying to fans of other teams. All of this attention. But most of it is negative attention these days. The media turned fairly quickly on LeBron, for instance, it seems. Lots of talk about how no one wants to join the Lakers because he’s there. Same thing was said about Kobe. And they haven’t even made the playoffs in years.

I’ve followed them as a diehard fan since the days of West and Baylor, even before they got Wilt. It wasn’t always like this — the negative attention, etc. Ironically, I think they received less attention back in the day when they were actually a far better franchise. I really don’t like the way they’ve been run the last coupla of decades.

For instance, I’d rather see them build a team for the long haul. I don’t like the strategy of finding aging superstars for a last hurrah. Prefer the idea of “home grown” development . . . of course, with key additions here and there. But without trades that mortgage the future. And the Lakers, especially during the Kobe era, did way too much of that. Traded away umpteen draft picks for a Steve Nash or some other “past his prime” vet.

Not a fan of that.

The Lakers may be unique in this regard, though: They likely have the least patient fan base in the NBA. They feel entitled to win now, and next year, and the year after. Me? As long as they’re working toward contending, I’m good.

I’d like to see people also discussing the merits of billionaires making tens of thousands of times more than their rank and file overseas, and hundreds or thousands more than their rank and file here.

How did they “earn” this? Can one human being possibly do the work of so many people? No. Perhaps two or three others? Yes. But not consistently over time. They’d burnout.

Not to mention all the people who contributed to that moment over time, going back even centuries if it’s tech, or medicine, or engineering, etc. etc. Not to mention the millions of people who contributed tax dollars for public infrastructure, without which no business owner could ever bring his or her goods to market. Public currency, courts, R and D, trade agreements, police, fire and rescue, military power to keep the shipping lanes free, and literally trillions of dollars in bailouts worldwide just since 1970 . . . .

So with all of these generations involved, and all of these humans involved, directly and indirectly, has there ever been any “merit” in one human, or a group of executives, taking for themselves the lion’s share?

Um, no. Billionaires shouldn’t exist, ever, but not just because of their effects once they have all of that money. They shouldn’t be allowed in the first place because no human being can possibly ever “earn” all of that loot on their own. It can only be gathered via theft. Actual theft.

Even the “progressives” who note that the existence of billionaires is wrong . . . even they don’t seem to get the obvious answer, and the obvious root of the problem.

The root is the capitalist system itself — or any economic system that allows one person to own all the production of others, as if they did all the work themselves. Any system that makes this the legal standard is immoral and should not exist.

Any system that says, “Hey, Jane, did you know it’s legal for you to hire thousands of workers and then own and control everything they do, all their creative work, all their production, all the surplus value they generate, as if you, Jane, as if you did all the work yourself — the work of thousands, which would be impossible.”

The system itself must be abolished, and it can’t be replaced but some alternative that ends up doing the same thing, like Lenin’s state capitalism. The only way to end inequality is to fully democratize the workplace, and extend democracy to include the entire economy. The only way to end inequality is to make the stakeholders — we the people — the owners, co-equals, co-owners, with equal shares in the fruits of our labor.

Expanding on the coaching thing a bit more: I thought the game itself was awful, from the standpoint of just football. If my team weren’t in the game, and I tried to watch it, I would have turned it off before half time.

One can argue whether or not Belichick has, in the past, been an amazing coach, this or that Sunday. But when both sides play relatively lousy football for the majority of the game, I don’t buy the argument that he was “a genius” in that particular game. Or even good. He wasn’t — and that’s if we just go by the results, if we accept the premise that the coach gets the credit for what his team produces on the field.

What did his team produce? A boring, low-scoring, mistake-filled game, matched by a slightly worse game by the opposition.

As mentioned above, I’ve never really bought into that premise about coaches, and have always seen the players are far more important, win or lose. Credit or blame. But it strikes me as a contradictory argument, which I heard almost across the board on the sports shows, from pretty much every pundit, that Belichick proved his genius yet again.

How? His team played poorly overall. The Rams were slightly worse overall. That’s a pretty low bar for “genius” or even “greatness” in my view. The least lousy of the two teams on that particular Sunday?

Invader,

Lotsa goods points from you, as always. And your use of the word “sync” made me think about a vital role of an NFL coach. Kinda like a conductor of an orchestra. He has to get his talent to mesh, work in harmony, “conduct” that, etc. etc. The best coaches may well be the best conductors.

Agree on the basketball stuff. With just five guys on the court, yeah, one player can really take over. Not sure if you noticed my comment on the Lakers going after Anthony Davis . . . but they must really believe one player can make all the difference too . . . well, at least when paired with Lebron. Might be forgetting other instances in the NFL where a team was willing to mortgage everything for one bloke, but right now, it evades me, outside the Ricky Williams and Herschel Walker trades.

To wrap things up: I’m not saying coaches, coaching, staff, position coaches and the like aren’t crucial. They’re very important to the success of the team. But, as mentioned, I just put a lot more on the players, one way or another, and I just think the “genius” thing is thrown around a bit too often.

I hate to admit it, but, yeah, Belichick is really, really good at what he does. As you mention, perhaps the best. Not ready to say he’s the GOAT, though his record says he is. That, of course, is another subject, another set of questions, entirely, maybe for another thread? Is it really proof, ultimately, that someone is the best coach ever because they have the most rings? I’m guessing most fans would say yes.

As you may have guessed by now, I’m not in that camp.

;>)

Great talking with ya, Invader. Hope all is well.