zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

What’s your take?

My take is pretty much the same as yours.

I thought Mahomes was amazing to watch. He can make more “forget the instruction manual” type throws than anyone else I think I’ve ever seen seen.

Donald just delivered that game to the Rams. On the strip sack that Ebukam recovered, he hurts himself through the air outstretched, with his feet off the ground and his body doggone near parallel to the field.

Agreed about Mahomes. He’s scary good.

Donald isn’t all-world, as some say. He’s not of this world. He’s like some cosmonaut, transcending both the Marvel and DC universes.

And that bending the laws of physics you mention? Reminds me of Quinn in his best year, the one with the nearly 20 sacks. Oh, what could have been!! Imagine the Rams with Quinn still at DE, minus the injuries, and Donald!! Sheesh. It almost wouldn’t be fair to opposing QBs, etc. Jones and Olsen redux. Build the D around them . . .

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

McVay is an excellent coach. He’s already proven himself. However . . .

Howdy BT. Always good to see you ’round these parts. Hope you’re hanging in there. I assume you saw the Chiefs game. What did you get out of that one? Just asking just to know your response to that one game.

Thanks, ZN.

Yes, I watched the KC game. Loved it. Hated it. Was thrilled, anguished, terrified and ultimately joyous. In a word or two, wondrously conflicted.

Thought the O was superb, even magical at times, but KC’s O was even better — except for their turnovers. The Rams’ defense was horrifically bad, and incredibly clutch. Without their defensive scores, the Rams lose. But they shouldn’t have given up so many points in the first place, etc. etc.

It was a very weird game in a way — in the sense that the defense was just ugly bad, but came up with amazing plays that most other defenses just can not make. Elite defense-type plays.

Goff was very good. The receivers and Gurley were very good. McVay was very good, etc. etc. But, amazingly enough, it wasn’t their best offensive display this year. They actually needed the defense to score to win.

What’s your take?

PA,

Yeah, I noticed the Saffold shove. That’s got to be “fixed” in private meetings this week. You just don’t do that.

Speaking of the Hekker call. When I watched it live and on replay, I got the sense that Hekker wasn’t running full out, which puzzled me. Yes, he stretched for the first, and that part of the run was a great effort . . . but prior to that? I’m not so sure he was all in on it in the first place. I just didn’t see him run like it was a 4th down play.

Just my take.

Also, the DBs are critical when it comes to the pass rush. What folks were hoping for, with the tandem of Peters and Talib, was that the pass rush would be that much more effective, due to their “shutdown” abilities. Talib gives them that. Peters hasn’t shown he can, as a Ram. Two excellent corners would have forced Brees to hold onto the ball that much longer, perhaps just long enough for Donald, Suh or Fowler to get to him.

This offseason’s number one priority now appears to be the defensive backfield. Corners and at least another safety. Speaking of which, does anyone else think they gave up too quickly on Alexander?

Agamemnon wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”></span>

That’s a big jump. Nearly 10 million next year. I imagine that’s got the Rams scrambling to figure things out before the season’s up.

nittany ram wrote:

Anyone else glad the Rams haven’t extended Marcus Peters yet?

I know he may be hurt, but if anything could be considered a disappointment about this season so far it would be his performance.

Second would be the lack of an impact edge rusher, but we always knew that could be a potential problem. That’s not a surprise.

I never saw this pedestrian version of Marcus Peters coming.

I didn’t realize they hadn’t extended him yet.

Right now, I wouldn’t. But the Rams — and they obviously know this already — need to find out exactly the kind of player they have in Peters, if his struggles are injury-related, or if that’s who he is.

My own take is this: If they could get a high pick for him before the trade deadline, I’d make the trade. A team isn’t likely to offer the Rams that. But if the Rams get a nice offer, they should cut bait.

Priorities for next year (FA and Draft) then become: Edge Rushers, DBs. They need O-line and TE as well. I’d also love to see them get a big, tough, run-stuffing insider-backer or two as well, even though they seem to prefer the smaller type. Littleton’s surprisingly excellent play as a starter stabilizes one of the two inside positions, but they still need to figure out the other one. They should at least have the option, IMO, of going to a big middle-linebacker type when the down and distance makes that logical, etc. etc.

Anyway . . . yeah, I’m not too thrilled with Peters to this point.

It would appear that everyone thinks Gurley did the right thing by staying out of the endzone at the end. Announcers, pundits, etc. etc. But I’m not so sure. Moot point, of course, cuz they won — and, again, that’s awesome. The entire season has been awesome. But I think I would have run it in for a TD anyway.

Up by 2, that puts them up by 8 even before the extra point. Make the extra point, and it’s 9, and there’s seconds left on the clock. That’s not enough time even for the great Aaron Rogers, and as well as the Rams D plays in the 4th . . . I’d trust them to stop him.

If the idea is, well, you can make a huge mistake on the extra point, or the kickoff, or somewhere else . . . . well, they could have goofed kneeling for the last play too. And then GB has the ball, down by 2, instead of down by 8 or 9. Plus, there’s the psychological aspect of playing aggressive football through the whistle.

Yeah, I know I’m all out on an island on this one, and it doesn’t matter . . . but I’d rather see the Rams win going away than playing it oh so safe.

Just my two cents.

Interesting article. I see Trump as a third-rate mob guy too . . . with deep connections here and in Russia to far more powerful mob organizations, going back decades.

A “between the lines” takeaway is how little time, energy, money and resources are used to investigate white-collar crime in America . . . which is largely why people like Manafort avoided jail as long as he has. Trump and Kushner too.

If you’re brown or black in America, especially, and you steal a pair of sneakers, you’re going to do time. If you’re white and have been stealing tens of millions for decades, no one is paying any attention. You’ll likely never be investigated, much less prosecuted, and the chances of jail? Next to nada.

Their mistake was running for office. That changes the dynamic entirely. The blind eye to private sector criminality often becomes laser eyes in the public.

. . .

O’Hehir is a very good film critic, btw, especially if you enjoy Indie and foreign films and like it when critics find those “hidden gems.” His political and cultural criticism is generally very solid, IMO, but it’s not his main gig.

For starters, I wish every American would read at least these two books on capitalism. At least:

The Origin of Capitalism, by Ellen Meiksins Wood
The Invention of Capitalism, by Michael Perelman

Both are must-reads. The first is perhaps the single best summary/description of what makes capitalism unique and unprecedented, and why. It’s short enough for our busy times, and more than accessible.

The second is an excellent history of capitalism’s start in England, and the author uses direct quotes from early political economists to tell the tale. Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, etc. Focuses on “primitive accumulation” but goes into all the essentials.

Just to clarify.

I would love to see us upgrade our system to “social democracy,” a la the Scandinavian countries. I think that would be a great improvement over what we have now.

But I’d much prefer a socialist society, full stop. The real thing, with fully applied democracy/democratic self-rule, etc.

To me, socialism has democracy baked in. It’s actually the entire point. Popular sovereignty, the end of capitalism, real democracy. That’s the whole point. So there’s no need to add “democratic” to “socialism.”

Except . . . to distinguish it from a tiny faction on the left that wants to achieve socialism by any means necessary. To me, the only route is via democratic, non-violent processes. That’s where the “democratic” adjective kicks in.

Some Marxists and other kinds of leftists have pointed out, over time, that “social democracy” delays — or prevents outright — socialist revolutions. Whether or not that’s the intention of its supporters . . . it tends to be enough, at least in relatively prosperous nation-states, to degrade revolutionary fervor for radical change.

There’s an unfortunate dynamic at work, historically. Boiled down, over-simplified:

1. The nations most in need of socialism — impoverished nations, with the least amount of popular sovereignty — have the biggest obstacles in their paths . . . and even if revolutions miraculously happen there, they lack the necessary surplus to sustain the new system. (Capitalist nations have never stepped in to help them, of course.)

2. The most prosperous nations, the ones that actually do have the necessary surplus to make socialism work beautifully, are generally the least likely to want to make those changes . . . for obvious reasons. The Powers that Be would no longer have their monopoly on wealth, privilege, power, etc. etc. They’d have to share all of that, for once.

From the people who suffer directly from Jones.

An open letter to Mark Zuckerberg: our child died at Sandy Hook – why let Facebook lies hurt us even more?

Dear Mr Zuckerberg,

Our names are Lenny Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa. We are the parents of Noah, who on 14 December, 2012, at the age of six, was gunned down in his classroom at Sandy Hook elementary school. Since that day, we, as well as the parents, family, and friends of the 25 other victims, have been embroiled in a constant battle with social media providers, including Facebook, to protect us from harassment and threats.

Almost immediately after the massacre of 20 little children, all under the age of seven, and six elementary school teachers and staff, the attacks on us began. Conspiracy groups and anti-government provocateurs began making claims on Facebook that the massacre was a hoax, that the murdered were so-called “crisis actors” and that their audience should rise up to “find out the truth” about our families. These claims and calls to action spread across Facebook like wildfire and, despite our pleas, were protected by Facebook.

While terms you use, like “fake news” or “fringe conspiracy groups”, sound relatively innocuous, let me provide you with some insight into the effects of allowing your platform to continue to be used as an instrument to disseminate hate. We have endured online, telephone, and in-person harassment, abuse, and death threats. In fact, one of the abusers was sentenced to jail for credible death threats that she admitted in court she had uttered because she believed in online content created by these “fringe groups”. In order to protect ourselves and our surviving children, we have had to relocate numerous times. These groups use social media, including Facebook, to “hunt” us, posting our home address and videos of our house online. We are currently living in hiding. We are far from alone in our experiences, as many other families who have lost loved ones in mass shootings and other tragedies have reported the same continuing torment.

Our families are in danger as a direct result of the hundreds of thousands of people who see and believe the lies and hate speech, which you have decided should be protected. What makes the entire situation all the more horrific is that we have had to wage an almost inconceivable battle with Facebook to provide us with the most basic of protections to remove the most offensive and incendiary content.

In your recent interview with Kara Swisher of Recode, you were asked why Facebook would allow an organization to post a conspiracy theory claiming that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged. While you implied that Facebook would act more quickly to take down harassment directed at Sandy Hook victims than, say, the posts of Holocaust deniers, that is not our experience. In fact, you went on to suggest that this type of content would continue to be protected and that your idea for combatting incendiary content was to provide counterpoints to push “fake news” lower in search results. Of course, this provides no protection to us at all. It would require people writing articles and making posts about our family and the massacre in the same quantity and read and spread by the same numbers as those who post and publish the hoax content. Since few are writing about a school shooting from six years ago, especially when other mass shootings have followed, only the Sandy Hook “hoax” information appears and is spread, giving increased credence to the hateful, dangerous content. If your goal is truly to provide protection to us and remove dangerous and malicious content quickly, may we suggest the following:

Treat victims of mass shootings and other tragedies as a protected group, such that attacks on them are specifically against Facebook policy.

Provide affected people with access to Facebook staff who will remove hateful and harassing posts against victims immediately.

Facebook plays a mammoth role in exposing the world’s masses to information. That level of power comes with the tremendous responsibility of ensuring that your platform is not used to harm others or contribute to the proliferation of hate. Yetit appears that under the guise of free speech, you are prepared to give license to people who make it their purpose to do just that.

After the death of our son and the bewildering attacks on our family and the families of the other victims, we began to hear from the people affected by other mass shootings and tragedies who were suffering similar abuse on Facebook. In response to the overt disregard shown by Facebook, we founded HONR.com with the mission of providing assistance to those being targeted online by mob hate.

After feeling so much hope following your pledge in the Senate to make Facebook a safer and more hospitable place for social interaction, we are once again feeling let down by your recent comments supporting a safe harbor for Holocaust deniers and hate groups that attack victims of tragedy.

Our son Noah no longer has a voice, nor will he ever get to live out his life. His absence is felt every day. But we are unable to properly grieve for our baby or move on with our lives because you, arguably the most powerful man on the planet, have deemed that the attacks on us are immaterial, that providing assistance in removing threats is too cumbersome, and that our lives are less important than providing a safe haven for hate.

Sincerely,

Leonard Pozner & Veronique De La Rosa

Parents of Noah Pozner, Sandy Hook shooting victim

zn wrote:

Another.

“He likes your lemonade.”
Lawrence of Arabia.

Also from the same scene: “that’s alright, we’re not particular”

Have watched LOA several times, and it never gets old for me. A lot of movies do after a few viewings, but it never does.

A host of great acting performances, but O’Toole’s is just off the charts great. He was possessed by Lawrence, as Lawrence was by that land.

I think it’s both.

Gotta end police brutality and all aspects of “living while black” oppression.

They called the police on this black woman the other day for giving food to a homeless person!!

So, yeah, economic, social and environmental justice.

But they need to also stop playing the anthem or pushing militarism down our throats at every game.

Just play the game. Anyone who actually wants “politics” removed from sports should be in favor of getting rid of all the pregame politics they don’t seem to recognize exists.

(I was banned from the Herd in large part for bringing this up. Still don’t know by whom.)

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

…and they were unanimous in saying that Russia interfered in 2016 and are trying to subvert the election now. Again, this is his own, hand-picked crew. …

————–

Ok, but you already know my thing on this. How do you ‘subvert’ a corporotacray’s ‘election.’

It was already subverted before it began. The corporate money and corporate propaganda, and corporate media and corporate support systems already subverted it.

I mean what was left for the russians to subvert? Putin wanted Trump instead of Hillary. He wanted corporate-puppet A instead of corporate puppet B.

I suppose thats a type of subversion…but..really? A ‘big story’ ?

w
v

My thing isn’t really about what Russia did or what Russia wants, though I think we should defend ourselves from their attacks.

My main thing is to hold Americans accountable if they accepted help from Russia, and that goes for anyone, from any party, not just Trump.

For me, the reason why this is a huge story is because of that. Because we have someone in the White House who very likely — I actually have no doubt whatsoever — willingly accepted, and/or solicited, help from foreign agents to win an election, thus breaking our election laws. He then lied repeatedly about having any contacts at all with the Russians, finally admitted to the contacts, then engaged in a sustained effort to undermine the investigation into his law-breaking.

IMO, the acceptance/solicitation of help, the endless lies and coverup, and the subsequent obstruction of justice . . . by the current president . . . is huge. To me, it dwarfs Watergate. It makes Nixon look like a choirboy in comparison.

As for the corporatocracy . . . I have no idea how to kill it, and like those old bug spray commercials, we need to kill it dead. It’s destroying the planet. Though, as you know, I think it goes deeper than just corporations. I think it’s capitalism itself that does this, that guarantees this.

Could Sanders counter it? Maybe a bit. It’s going to take generations of people like him to put the final nail in the coffin of capitalism, for a host of reasons, including the dumbing down you speak of. But also because capitalists have managed to set up a system of taxpayer bailouts which keeps the system going even after it should go down for the count, forever, by all rights.

No economic system in world history, in fact, has ever set up so many fail-safes — all on our dime.