This is the kind of personnel/coaching decision that makes the difference between a wildcard team or a losing team, etc.

These ‘nuts and bolts’ decisions. They are NOT ‘no brainers’. This coaching staff has to get this right. The Center decision. And its not an easy decision, i bet. Its not like starting Goff or Quinn or somethin.

These are the kinds decisons that will tell us a lot about this new organization.
The WR decisons are the same thing, to me.

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

But ‘something’ about Trump just made some faction in the CIA go nutz.

This is so simple.

They’re professionals and he is dangerously incompetent when it comes to those issues.

It’s nothing more than that. Notice none of the dissent is about policy (unlike in the courts with immigration). It’s about procedures.

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

Professional killers? Professional torturers?

Sorry, i dont see it the same way. AND, you cant prove that the reason they didnt want Trump is ‘professionalism’. I mean how can you know that?

We know there is a fissure. We know one faction wanted Hillary BAD.

We DONT know WHY. You can speculate it was ‘professionalism’.

w
v

Yes that’s part of it within divided organizations that actually have factions on one side or another of those issues.

What you DON’T do in real analysis is inflate this fictional enemy to darth vader status, and ignore real history (the CIA includes people who argue AGAINST using torture on the grounds that it is actually ineffective, and that includes the people who outed a lot of Bush’s “go to war” info as fake).

Slogans are easy, analysis is better.

AND remember who you are talking to! Do you see in me a longterm defender or american secret foreign policy alliances with dictators and death squads etc?

These things have histories, they are never these inflated mythical things, and I will always back real analysis over bumper stickers.

.

=============
i added a ‘PS’ on my message while u were typing yours. Fwiw.

I agree things have ‘histories’. I dont agree what I’m doing is ‘bumper sticker analysis’. I mean i could say exactly the same thing about what you are doing — i could call it ‘bumper sticker analysis’.

We just see the CIA differently now. I know about its history as well as you. I know its history. And i disagree about what it is. I know…its…history…and i see it as a Monstrosity. You see it as a mix of things. Cool, we disagree. But dont act like i dont know its history. We both know its history.

I’m sure there were Nazis who argued that the Jews shouldnt be killed — but the Nazi Party was still a monstrosity.

w
v

• This reply was modified 8 years, 12 months ago by wv.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

But ‘something’ about Trump just made some faction in the CIA go nutz.

This is so simple.

They’re professionals and he is dangerously incompetent when it comes to those issues.

It’s nothing more than that. Notice none of the dissent is about policy (unlike in the courts with immigration). It’s about procedures.

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

Professional killers? Professional torturers?

Sorry, i dont see it the same way. AND, you cant prove that the reason they didnt want Trump is ‘professionalism’. I mean how can you know that?

We know there is a fissure. We know one faction wanted Hillary BAD.

We DONT know WHY. You can speculate it was ‘professionalism’.

PS — edit, that came across much snarkier than i intended. We just see some fundamental-things differently now, Rick. No big deal. No heat. Just difference of opinion. I have zero respect for the CIA. I see it as a monstrosity protecting a biosphere-killing corporate-capitalist-system. I dont recognize any ‘professionalism’ in it.

w
v

• This reply was modified 8 years, 12 months ago by wv.

How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525

“…To watch even a day of Fox News – the anger, the bombast, the virulent paranoid streak, the unending appeals to white resentment, the reporting that’s held to the same standard of evidence as a late-­October attack ad – is to see a refraction of its founder, one of the most skilled and fearsome operatives in the history of the Republican Party. As a political consultant, Ailes repackaged Richard Nixon for television in 1968, papered over Ronald Reagan’s budding Alzheimer’s in 1984, shamelessly stoked racial fears to elect George H.W. Bush in 1988, and waged a secret campaign on behalf of Big Tobacco to derail health care reform in 1993. “He was the premier guy in the business,” says former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins. “He was our Michelangelo.”

——————

Yeah, for me, that article goes in the Zine. (along with the Rolling Stone article on Hog Farms)
Each paragraph could be bolded, undrlined, italicized, and highlighted.

The Reps are driving us off the cliff at 100 mph.
And they have what? about 35 percent of the hearts/minds of
the people? The left is divided, and another faction doesnt vote cause of apathy, and another faction doesn’t vote out of principle (system is too corrupt to participate in)

w
v

zn wrote:

Enh. I dunno. Looks hyped up, not really substantial.

——————-

I miss Picard.

w
v

zn wrote:

————

Lol. I’ll say one thing for Trump — he has spawned some great signs and posters over the last year.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

I don’t have access to Putin’s head, but I have read that “Democracy is weak and ineffectual and vulnerable and undesirable” is a pretty constant theme on Russian television. Which I do not watch myself.

=================
Interesting. I have never read anything like that. The ‘undesirable’ part I mean. I shall have to google a bit and see what i can find. I know that on RT that is certainly not what the message is — the message is America’s ‘democracy’ has been wiped out by a corporotacracy.’ At least thats the message “I” see constantly on RT. I mean Chris Hedges regularly appears on RT.

w
v

Well teams must have figured them out after that, cause
it got Old-Testament-Ugly after that.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

waterfield wrote:

wv wrote:

Looks like Trump has a 38 percent approval rating this month. Fwiw.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

w
v

Yeah I know. But not “approving” of him is different than not “supporting” him. Which is my point. I know several who can’t stand the guy and don’t “approve” of his conduct other than his efforts to make their financial interests more secure. Sad. But these are family run businesses and their concern is focused on just that.To a man and woman they are totally convinced that had Clinton won their business would have been adversely affected.

That is right, and it’s an important distinction.

At the same time his approval ratings drop, polls also show that he would win again if the election were held today. In spite of all this shit.

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

Well, i assume he’d beat Hillary again, but I dunno about Biden or Gore or Bernie etc. I dunno. I think it’d be REAL close again. Could go either way, I’d think.

Trump will always have his Racist-Nationalist Faction. And his White Evangelical Christian Faction. And his Wealthy White Country Club faction. And his white working-class Faction. Thats a pretty good base. Hardly unbeatable though.

w
v

I think this para-graph right here iz pregnant
with meanings:

“…“He’s shown he can track the ball down the field,” McVay said from the Rams’ rookie minicamp on Friday. “Really, as far as establishing him as a deep threat, I think we’re just looking for all our receivers to be complete. You want to be able to have a short, intermediate and deep-route tree. And I think it gives you a little bit more route versatility so people can’t squat on you. You certainly want to be cognizant of accentuating guys’ skill set, but also not being regulated in terms of, ‘This is what they do.’ That’s the thing that he’s really embraced, and we’re looking to do that with Tavon.”

• This reply was modified 8 years, 12 months ago by wv.

zn wrote:

. There’s a part of me that smiles about it. I wish it was Bernie doing it. But its Trump. Which means its like Saluman pissing off Sauron.

I’m afraid it’s not that simple.

First, in the run-up to the Iraq war, on this very board, or its earlier incarnation, we came up with a ton of info questioning the president’s interpretation of things. Many of those sources were active or former members of the intel community, who were appalled at what was happening.

2nd, when challenged about sources, I kept reiterating—the mainstream media as an entire whole, from top to bottom, is not complicit. If you know how to you can sift through it and spot useful info.

This is why I never get into slogan-ized simple sides taking. Being on the left has taught me not to be categorical that way.

For example, american resistance to ISIS is unquestionably a GOOD thing and we are better with it than without it, as are millions of others who live in the region.

At the same time yes, you have to sort through and point to the actually damaging policy ideas and actions. But that’s not this unified entity acting, it’s a huge self-divided thing.

An oligarchy is just not going to be as sealed and uniform and airtight as a straight-up dictatorship.

It doesn’t lend itself to simple slogan ideas. IMO one has to be more nimble than that.

.

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

Yeah, fighting Isis is a good thing. But on the whole, I think the biggest threat to all humanity and the biosphere is not Isis. I think its the deep-state. The corporotacracy. And the CIA/NSA is the dagger of the corporotacracy.

I dont think it has anything to do with ‘nimbleness’ or lack of nimbleness. Overall i think the CIA/NSA is about as evil as it gets. The subsystem. Not the people. Not the individuals. I’m sure ‘they’ all think they are patriots of the highest order, and all that.

I know we disagree on this. I’ve only come to this particular view in the last year or so. I have no ‘heat’ here. Not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just sharing.

w
v

Billy_T wrote:

Good article. I especially liked the mention of William Morris, a personal favorite of mine. His visionary left-libertarianism was pragmatic as well.

Which reminds me: I think the emergence of the Sanders/Clinton split has brought something into focus, that, of course, was always there, but not so apparent . . . From left to right, one’s idea of “pragmatism,” “extremism,” “reality,” “purity tests,” and so on is almost entirely subject to one’s own place along the spectrum and the greater context of one’s life. As in, I’ve had too many recent, futile discussions with Dems who bash, insult and blast Sanders and persons left of Sanders for their “extremism” and inability to deal with “reality.” From my vantage point, it’s those centrist, corporatist Dems who have that problem, and I see their clinging to the capitalism system as “extremist.” Even among leftists, this same suspicion of other views obtains, and most of it likely stems from stereotypes and assumptions about others that really don’t have basis in fact.

We all fall for it. We all bring to the table our own biases, and no one is above that.

To me, the best way out of that rut is to gather, crowd-source, hash out end-goals and horizons and try to agree upon general paths, without insulting each other for being too this or too that. Work back from First Principles, once we’ve established them, and avoid mocking end-goals for their potential as “unrealistic.” The point of those goals isn’t, and never has been, their relative connection to what is currently possible. The point of those end-goals has always been to push us to do better, and better, and better. If we don’t shoot for the moon, we’re only going to reach some ledge on a little hill. If we shoot for the moon and fall short, we’re far more likely to reach the Rockies.

===============
I think that all makes pretty good sense.

w
v

I thought it was a good little article. I agree with the general thrust of it.

I think a lot of far-leftists are not able to even ‘consider’ important tinkering and ‘reforms’ of real-actual policies. They have there heads in the clouds and they tend to be ‘purity police’.
On the other hand there’s leftists who dont seem to have much of ‘vision’.

So, i like the notion of pragmatism/utopianism mixed together. I mean, i have my ‘anarchist/socialist’ vision or goal, but in the real world we have to deal with eons of history and we got to go policy by policy.

Thus, even though i despise corporate-imperial-capitalism (are there other kinds?)
I still think its a good idea to work for single-payer in this corporate-imperial-capitalist system we are stuck in.

w
v

• This reply was modified 8 years, 12 months ago by wv.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 12 months ago by wv.