zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Susan Collins flatly stated she would not support a judge who would overturn RvsW. She said she was opposed to “activist” judges, and that they would look at the written judgments, and she would not support a judge who “went out of bounds” to push new interpretations and laws.

I think she’s a No on Kavanaugh.

We lefties in Maine see Collins as a problem who often says “the right things” to keep her job in a blue state, but, is never ever to be fully trusted. So we’ll see on Collins. Hope you’re right.

I’m betting she votes for Kavanagh. My guess is no Republican breaks ranks with Trump on this one, and that two or three Dems side with him too.

These hearings, pretty much ever since Bork, purposely reveal next to nothing about the nominee. They’ve been coached so well on the non-answer, senators have plenty of cover to vote their way. I suspect Kavanagh will speak in vague platitudes and won’t reveal anything regarding Roe, etc. etc. so Collins and Murkowski are safe to remain in the fold.

The right has basically won, because there is no authentic opposition from the only party that could muster it, given our monopoly/duopoly system.

Speaking of rule from the minority:

We’re living in an age of minority rule

This factoid is pretty striking:

Why do I say that a vote in Kavanaugh’s favor is an example of minority rule? Because the body that will confirm him is built in its current formation to almost guarantee Republican control, despite the fact that most American voters selected Democrats to represent them there.

Using Dave Leip’s invaluable election atlas, I added up all the votes cast for Democrats and Republicans in the 2012, 2014 and 2016 Senate elections, which put the current Senate in place. I didn’t bother with the few special elections since 2012, which in total wouldn’t change the results much, but I did include Bernie Sanders’s and Angus King’s last elections, since they are nominally independent but caucus with the Democrats. Here are the results:

Republican votes: 102.3 million

Democratic votes: 117.4 million

In the elections that determined the current Senate, there were 15 million more votes cast for Democrats than for Republicans. Yet Republicans maintain control and therefore get to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

Another thing that isn’t helping the Dems win over fence-sitters or anyone to their left:

When it comes to Congress, legislation and the Courts, the Dems tend to accept the previous baseline created by extremely aggressive Republican activism. They tend not to try to reverse clearly odious and radically reactionary changes, when they get their shot at the captain’s chair. This just means our political “center” keeps moving further and further right, and the coming Supreme Court battles will highlight this for those paying any attention.

Precedent. Contrary to right-wing bellyaching about “activist liberal judges,” it’s always been their own judges who seek radical change and often get it. The so-called liberal judges actually tend to accept precedent, even terrible precedent, like Heller, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, etc. etc. and rarely even mention overturning any of those decisions.

Which is bizarre, given that all of them went against previous precedent, and radically so.

It’s yet one more huge and destructive way in which our political “center” keeps moving rightward, and it hurts every American and the planet.

Reactionaries work aggressively to overturn precedent. So-called liberals accept the new baseline. World without end.

In my view, Democratic Party centrism gave us a whole lot more than just Trump.

With their rightward rush after the 1960s, it paved the way for Reagan, both Bushes, a slew of reactionary judges, mayors, governors and Congresses, before, during and after the token (largely faux) pushback offered by Clinton and Obama, who also governed from the center to center-right.

In the absence of any authentic opposition, the American right was able to move from its fringe position prior to the early 1970s, into near-dominance of all levers of power today.

The same thing is taking place in Europe.

Refuse to give the people any actual choices, especially on economic matters, and a goodly portion will succumb to fear and scapegoating, especially of the Other. They’ll go with the people who promise them a quick end to their fears.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

That was very, very good. It’s exactly what the Dems should have been saying and doing for decades, and that particular candidate has “star” written all over her, in the best way. Not in the cynical way.

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

Well but to me thats like saying Orcs should be more like elves. Ya know.

The Dems havent been doing and saying that because…they are dems. Wall-street loving, Corporate loving, Rep-Lites. Its who they are. Mostly.

But not totally.

Maybe another defeat at the hands of Trump is what they need, before there can be a Dem swamp-draining. I dunno.

w
v

I’m speaking more in historical terms, really. It may just be me getting old and seeing through the fog of time, but my memory of the Dems is that they really were different 50 years ago, and that they really have shifted radically to the right, chasing corporate money to catch up to the GOP. Thomas Frank writes about that as well. We both could be wrong, but it rings true for me.

Not that they were ever “radical.” Far, far from it. Not within light years of that. But they were at least solidly center-left. Now they’re solidly center-right.

(No reason for a “Third Way.” We already have the Dems, etc.)

This is an interesting tweet from a Dem rep who admits as much. Kinda surprising:

“Democrats don’t just represent progressive values, we also represent the middle & even the middle right because of how far the #GOP has shifted,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) tweeted Tuesday night.

That was very, very good. It’s exactly what the Dems should have been saying and doing for decades, and that particular candidate has “star” written all over her, in the best way. Not in the cynical way.

Saffold is a beast. I’m not sure if any of the rookies have changed this dynamic, but Saffold may be the strongest Ram.

Great blocks on two guys in one play? Sheesh. Obviously, it would be impossible for the whole line to execute like that, but it’s not impossible to drill into their heads the need to try. With a back like Gurley, an entire line doing this, plus wideouts, TEs, etc. etc. . . he’s going to go the distance a lot more than he has in the past, and he’s already been one of the best with long-gainers in the league overall. Well, minus his sophomore slump.

Cohesion along the line is paramount. Might be more important on the O-line than the D, though that’s open to debate. Which may be why most teams don’t do “rotations” along the O-line, but swear by it on the D. But I wonder. If the Rams have enough faith in some of their backups, it seems to me, at least theoretically, that utilizing rotations might make it more possible to have those double blocks happen more often. Fresh legs, etc.

A combination, of course, of the skill levels of the backups, their ability to step in without missing a beat, the ability of the entire line to adjust, cohere, etc. etc. But if it’s doable? Could be a very powerful innovation to make it routine.

I’m warming up to the Cooks trade, almost on a daily basis. I still think it’s risky, due to the possibility that he just moves on after this year, like Sammy . . . But I think he’s the better receiver overall. They just have to make sure they keep him, or it’s a very costly one-year rental.

So far . . . and this is just amateur fan stuff . . . but I don’t think Cooks has been utilized properly in his career to date. He can do the end-arounds, the quick pitches in the backfield, the short stuff too. He’s more than just a one-trick Ferrari. It looks like McVay sees this.

Oh, and who is Micah Hyde? Does the author mean Kiser?

InvaderRam wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

If the Rams can find a truly dominant edge guy — which they may have in Obo — there’s just No Exit for the other team.

i like ogbo. but i like ebukam too. he’s explosive. and he just might surprise this season. i’m hoping he can be that edge guy for the rams.

I had temporarily forgotten about Ekubam. He’s speedy. Did a 4.45 forty before the Draft.

Both he and Ogbo lack “prototypical” height for the edge, but I bet that put a chip on their shoulders and they’re out to prove it doesn’t matter. Much like Dwight Freeney, among others in the past.

They probably won’t do this . . . but who knows? Phillips could use Ogbo and Ekubam, left and right as rushers. Pincer action, with Suh and Donald crushing the mid-section of the offense. I’m also high on Kiser. I think he’ll end up being one of their middle backers before the season is over.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I doubt that any computer programmer, shooting for the perfect defensive lineman, would give us an Aaron Donald before he had actually played an NFL down.

I one of the many who believe that the combination of Donald, Suh, and Brockers is going to be a joy to watch.

I know everyone thinks that. It’s just fun to anticipate it out loud.

Agreed. Lotsa fun for us. Not so much fun for opposing teams. And I’m betting Suh does just fine at the, well, kinda sorta “nose.” He’s not huge for that position, but big enough at roughly 310, and way strong. Mean, too. Meaner than Brockers or Donald. It’s just not going to be much fun for QBs or running backs. If the Rams can find a truly dominant edge guy — which they may have in Obo — there’s just No Exit for the other team.

Next year’s draft: If it turns out not to be Obo, they should spend an early pick on an edge, and they’ll need a DT to replace Suh. O-line, of course, early as well. Maybe load up with linemen and an edge up through their comp picks. After that, I’d like to see another speed back to complement Gurley. He should compliment him too. Gurley deserves that.

;>)

The Rams are getting closer to that point where they can just go BPA, and that’s an exciting thing for their future.

Btw, I’m a Stewart fan, but I missed any kind of origin story behind your use of his visage. What is the Marvel myth of beginnings for that?

wv wrote:

I love ‘personal awakening’ stories, of all kinds.

I wonder how many folks are indebted to Herman/Chomsky for that damn book.

w
v

I’d say millions are indebted to them. A modern day tandem like Marx and Engels. National treasures, though Herman is the forgotten man, I suppose.

We can add people like Chris Hedges, David Graeber, George Scialabba, Naomi Klein, Richard D. Wolff, David Harvey and Gar Alperovitz, among the living. Among the dead, some less than obvious names, aside from Camus and Orwell . . Simone Weil, Ignazio Silone, Randolph Bourne, Dwight MacDonald, Irving Howe, Paul Goodman . . . and further back in time, Peter Kropotkin, Proudhon, William Morris.

But something I think is left out of the discussion too often:

The rather vague and easily abused heading of “the West,” while it is responsible for that odious narrative discussed in the article, is also responsible for a ginormous amount of counter-narrative/dissent and a tradition of self-criticism that doesn’t exist in all “cultures.”

Personally, I think what makes us “bad guys” when that is the case, and it’s far too often the case, is the fact of our relative and massive advantages in power/wealth, and not anything intrinsic to “the West.” Just as it’s absolutely wrong to consider us greater, better, more moral or in any way superior to others or the Other . . . I think it’s also wrong to consider us intrinsically worse. That cuts against the most cogent and effective parts of the self-critique, ironically.

We are “bad” or worse — evil — in direct proportion to our power over others and the Other. Flip the script, and those we oppressed would become the oppressors in turn.

Power is created by wealth in the capitalist system. Take away the dynamic of mass inequality of wealth, and you go further than any other single corrective when it comes to inequalities of power, and that takes (most of) the sting out of the harm we can do to others and the Other.

It works if the tables are turned as well.

**From what I’ve seen, online, especially, the Number One excuse from diehard Dems, when it comes to the election losses? Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders. Dem diehards blame them more than any other single factor, and it’s not close.

This pisses me off to no end, and I argue with them endlessly about it, but to no avail. They’ve dug in. They won’t budge. To all too many rank and file Dems, Sanders and Stein, as they say, “gave us Trump,” and anyone who disagrees is immediately attacked as somehow personally handing the election over to Trump. I experience that first hand and see it happen to others.

Crazy, illogical, irrational and incredibly stupid, but that’s their view. At least in public.

Only in America.

Great article, Zooey.

Thanks.

But I’m not so sure the author is correct about our lack of choices. I mean, with the Dems and the Republicans, we get an awesome range of options. The best in the entire world. The best evah, actually. Americans get to choose between:

Endless wars or . . . endless wars.
Skyrocketing economic inequality . . . or skyrocketing economic inequality.
Leading the world in incarceration rates . . . or leading the world in incarceration rates.
A massive, growing surveillance state . . . or a massive, growing surveillance state.
Capitalism, imperialism and empire . . . or capitalism, imperialism and empire.

I mean, what do people expect? Baskin-Robbins?

waterfield wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

“Talking down” to people about various intellectual matters? I may be missing something, but I can’t see how that leads to wars, environmental devastation, the surveillance state, the carceral state, mass inequality, etc. etc.

Simple. When you insult someone’s intelligence you eventually cause them to lose faith in your positions. That in turns causes them, knowingly or unknowingly, to support those who care far less about “wars, environmental devastation,…, and the mass inequality, than you or I do.

Well, again, I’m against “talking down” to other people, and against insulting their intelligence. But I don’t see that as something practiced only by “coastal elites” or liberals, or leftists, or Dems. And I think if people are honest, and come out of their tribal bubbles at least long enough to be honest, they’d admit they’ve experienced that from many different sources, and all over the country.

Even in the South. Even in heavily Republican areas.

I mentioned country clubs above. My experience working in one, with Republican members dominant, forced daily negotiations with “elitists” and all too frequent “talking down to” those of us on staff. The business owner/rich people form of that. Not the academic or professional classes, with rare exceptions.

Anyway . . . my very general observation is that Dems are just really, really bad at hiding their elitism, whereas Republicans are very good at it. Cowboy hats and pickup trucks — literally and metaphorically. They can pull that off. The Dems pretty much either never try or just can’t make it work.

(In this case, talking about the Dems, rather than “the left.” The two aren’t generally the same, at least not since the 1960s.)

wv wrote:

After all these years, I dunno what to think about 9-11. I really dont. I dont trust the official version anymore, but i dont trust any of the alternative versions either. I ‘lean toward’ the official version but I am not totally convinced. I wish there were sources on this i could trust.

Another example of wv-ram not-knowing-somethin.

Anybody on this board a 9-11 agnostic, like me? Just curious. I know at one time Mack was, but then he moved toward the official theory. …where the hell is Mack, btw?

w
v

I don’t trust the official story in this sense:

It didn’t really deal with government’s failure to prevent it, or its role in indirectly provoking it.

(Blowback)

I think they got who did it right. And I’ve never believed the Alex Jones bullshit about it being a false flag. It just never made any sense that the powers that be would blow up their own key installations, especially not major seats of economic, military and political power.

Not that the government is beyond major operations to provoke wars. But if they’re gonna do them, they’re gonna make sure it’s overseas and doesn’t result in major losses to their own key assets.

Plus, it’s really not that hard to persuade enough Americans that we need yet another war. Our history shows this. Why take all of that risk, blowing up key assets at home, in the centers of power, when there are so many other ways to start a war and get a buy-in?

Matt Taibbi wrote some really excellent pieces concerning the Truthers back in the day. He dealt with much of the above.