Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
znModeratorHow crazy will the scoring get at Super Bowl LI?
Atlanta Falcons reporter Vaughn McClure and New England Patriots reporter Mike Reiss take an in-depth look at the Super Bowl LI matchup between the Falcons and Patriots.
ATLANTA FALCONS
Record: 11-5, regular season
First place, NFC South
Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan threw touchdown passes to 13 different receivers this season — an NFL first. Erik S. Lesser/EPA
Matt Ryan spoke with a number of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks before and during the season about the process of achieving the NFL’s ultimate prize. Maybe next season, somebody will be reaching out to him.The 31-year-old, who is the leading MVP candidate, is competing for his first Super Bowl ring as the Falcons and Patriots square off Sunday.
“I think we’ve come a long way,” Ryan said. “We’ve gotten better, and that’s one of the things we focused on in the offseason, trying to find ways to improve as a team, as an offense. I think the addition of some of the players that we picked up — guys like Taylor [Gabriel], Alex Mack, Aldrick Robinson, Mohamed Sanu — just have added to our team and made us a better offense.”
Can the Falcons score enough points to overtake Tom Brady and the mighty Patriots? With both teams averaging better than 35 points a game this postseason, it could make for quite a shootout.
FALCONS’ X FACTOR
Taylor Gabriel. Julio Jones will draw his share of attention, as always. The running back tandem of Devonta Freeman and Tevin Coleman might find it difficult to get the run going against a Patriots defense that hasn’t allowed even a 90-yard rusher in 25 straight games. So, somebody else might have to step to the forefront, and that guy could be speedy wide receiver Gabriel. Jones talked about how safeties can’t cheat anymore with the vertical threat Gabriel presents on the opposite side. Gabriel averaged 42.7 yards on his six receiving touchdowns during the regular season. He also has a 37-yard reception this postseason, so he’s capable of getting behind any defense and creating an explosive play.
WHY THE FALCONS WILL WIN
Matt Ryan. The likely MVP has been on fire during a current six-game winning streak, with 18 touchdowns, no interceptions, an average of 310.2 passing yards and a completion percentage of 72.8. If Ryan continues his torrid pace and continues to spread the ball around — he established an NFL first with touchdown passes to 13 different receivers this season — the Falcons will be on track for another 30-plus-point outing, even against a Patriots defense that surrendered a league-low 15.6 points per game. The Falcons also need Ryan to take care of the ball and need the offense to sustain drives. According to ESPN Stats & Information, Ryan is 20-of-22 on third down this postseason with 15 first downs and three touchdowns. Ryan also has engineered eight consecutive opening-drive touchdowns. That’s winning football.
WHY THE FALCONS WILL LOSE
Inexperience. Although the Falcons have the NFL’s oldest active roster with an average age of 27.5, they have plenty of inexperienced young players set to play on the big stage. The most noticeable are the four rookie starters on defense — strong safety Keanu Neal, linebacker Deion Jones, linebacker De’Vondre Campbell and nickelback Brian Poole. All four players have been very productive this season, but how will they react under the bright lights of the Super Bowl? Not to mention those players will have to contend with Brady, a four-time Super Bowl champ and three-time Super Bowl MVP. In addition, the Falcons have a trio of inexperienced second-year players on defense in NFL sacks leader Vic Beasley Jr., cornerback Jalen Collins and nose tackle Grady Jarrett. Coach Dan Quinn said the youngsters are playing like they’re much older and the older players are playing much younger. We’ll see whether the trend continues Sunday.
FALCONS PREDICTION
The Falcons are on a mission not just for themselves but for the entire city of Atlanta. This is a confident group that not only believes it can score on anyone but also believes it has the right mixture of youth and experience on defense to come up with big stops when needed most. Sure, it’s a much tougher challenge going up against Brady, who is aiming for his fifth Super Bowl title and is 4-0 all time against the Falcons. But the Falcons defeated a pair of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks to get here in Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. Falcons offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan has tricked defenses the entire season with his masterful playcalling, which has generated 40 points per game this postseason. Shanahan certainly has more up his sleeve before he exits to become the head coach of the 49ers. Falcons 35, Patriots 28
NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
Record: 14-2
First place, AFC East
Tom Brady and Bill Belichick expect the Patriots to get off to a quicker start Sunday than they have in other Super Bowls. Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports
The first quarter has been on Bill Belichick’s mind so much leading up to Super Bowl LI that, by the end of the week, quarterback Tom Brady was sick of hearing about it.“I’d like to score a lot more points than zero, which we’ve done the last six times,” Brady said of the Patriots’ first-quarter scoring output in Super Bowls. “Coach Belichick has reminded me 10 times in the last 10 days.”
A faster start is a necessity for the Patriots, which sparks an intriguing possibility to consider: If New England wins the opening toss, would it take the ball instead of its normal choice of deferring to the second half? The Patriots did decide to take the ball first in the AFC Championship Game against the Pittsburgh Steelers.
The Patriots were an exceptional first-quarter team in the regular season, outscoring opponents 130-32. That means they seldom played from behind.
Ditto for the Falcons, who held a 139-68 edge over opponents in the first quarter during the regular season and enter the Super Bowl having scored touchdowns on eight straight opening drives, the longest streak since the 2003 Patriots started five straight games with touchdowns.
As Brady said in the days leading up to the game, the Falcons were usually leading by so many points it was difficult to find “got-to-have-it” situations in which their defense showed a consistent pattern of what it relies on most.
Thus, which team wrests control of the first quarter is one of the more compelling subplots of Super Bowl LI.
PATRIOTS’ X FACTOR
In the high-stakes games in which the Patriots have experienced some of their most painful defeats, such as last year’s AFC Championship Game or the two Super Bowls against the New York Giants, one of the key factors has been offensive line struggles. Their inability to turn to the running game to settle things down made them too one-dimensional, simplifying things for the opposing D.
So it all starts up front for the Patriots with the starting line of left tackle Nate Solder, left guard Joe Thuney, center David Andrews, right guard Shaq Mason and right tackle Marcus Cannon. Each played more than 90 percent of the offensive snaps during the regular season, with line coach Dante Scarnecchia crediting that continuity as critical.
The Falcons, in turn, feel the same way, as they are the only team this season to start the same five offensive linemen in each game.
To sum it up, the Patriots’ ability to create space in the running game, which in turn will open up play-action passing opportunities, will be critical.
WHY THE PATRIOTS WILL WIN
Brady is on a mission, and the Patriots’ physicality on both sides of the line of scrimmage gives them the best chance to control the game. And then it’s all about what happens after the catch on both sides of the ball. Defensively, the Patriots’ fundamental tackling will have to deliver against the big-play Falcons offense. In the regular season, the Patriots led the NFL by allowing an average of just 4.05 yards after the catch and the Falcons’ offense was second in the NFL in averaging 6.18 yards after the catch. Meanwhile, the Patriots’ offense averaged a league-high 6.34 yards after the catch.
WHY THE PATRIOTS WILL LOSE
If they get sloppy with the football. There is arguably no more powerful statistic as it relates to the success of the Patriots in the Belichick-Brady era (2000-present) than turnover differential. When the Patriots win the turnover differential, they have posted a regular-season record of 137-13. When they lose it, their regular-season record is 34-41. When it’s even, they are 30-17. This is why Falcons coach Dan Quinn said that if there is one thing that will decide the outcome, “it’s all about the ball.” The Patriots and Falcons each had a league-low 11 turnovers in the regular season.
PATRIOTS PREDICTION
Texans coach Bill O’Brien previously explained how the Patriots’ diverse offensive backfield stresses opposing defenses because of the diverse skill sets of power back LeGarrette Blount, dual threat Dion Lewis and passing back James White. With the Patriots relying on their foundation from the start of training camp, which has included practicing in full pads once a week into early February, physicality, starting with the running game, will be a trademark stamp of their approach in Super Bowl LI. And, of course, it never hurts to have Brady leading the way. Patriots 37, Falcons 31.
znModeratorPatriots defense gives opponents plenty to look at
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/20170204/patriots-defense-gives-opponents-plenty-to-look-at
HOUSTON – What Jake Matthews has seen from studying Trey Flowers on film doesn’t surprise him.
The Atlanta left tackle twice tangled with New England’s versatile defensive lineman in the SEC, Matthews’ Texas A&M team beating Flowers and Arkansas both times. Flowers at that time played defensive end, coming after quarterbacks from the outside.
Flowers still does some of that with the Patriots. But he’ll also move inside at times as well, tangling with the center and guards. There’s no way for the Falcons to predict where he’ll line up on any play.
“We’ve seen a ton of film of him working over the center and then coming outside and working over the tackles, too,” Matthews said. “That’s something that sticks out with the whole defense. They can mix it up. Guys aren’t one-dimensional. They’ll play all over. That’s a big asset for them.”
Indeed, one of the hallmarks of New England’s defense is its versatility and unpredictability. The ability of Flowers to play all over the defensive line is just one example. That versatility has allowed Flowers to compile seven sacks in his last 11 games.
“You have to prepare yourself for more,” said Atlanta guard Andy Levitre, who played his first four seasons with the Buffalo Bills. “It’s not like you’re going to be playing against one or two guys. You’re going to be playing against a bunch of different guys because they move them all around.”
Even the Patriots’ defensive scheme can vary from game to game.
The New England defense Levitre remembers from his years in Buffalo was a 3-4 defense, the classic Bill Belichick defense that emphasizes linebacker play. The New England defense he’ll face Sunday tends to deploy just two linebackers in favor of an extra safety or cornerback.
“They do a little bit of everything, and they do it fairly well,” said Falcons guard Chris Chester, who played with the Baltimore Ravens in his first five seasons in the NFL. “There’s a lot of variety in their attack. A lot of teams try to do one thing and do it well. The Patriots do a lot of things and do them all pretty well.”
To Chester and Levitre, New England has two constants in its defensive front.
One is versatility, the ability of players to line up at a variety of spots on the field like Flowers, and the other is stout run-stuffers such as Alan Branch and Malcom Brown.
That still leaves plenty of space for Flowers and the Patriots to create as much confusion as possible.
“What’s difficult is dealing with the different schemes,” Chester said. “Are they going to be stunting? Are they going to be dropping? How’s our protection going to match up against whatever blitz or pressure they’ve got going? That’s going to be our challenge.”
znModeratorHall of Fame Highlights: Kurt Warner
Celebrate QB Kurt Warner’s induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame with this highlight montage.
znModeratorCoach Vermeil Reflects on Kurt Warner’s Career
Former Rams Super Bowl winning coach Dick Vermeil congratulates Kurt Warner on his induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame by remembering his storied career.
znModeratorznModeratorznModeratorFebruary 5, 2017 at 1:25 am in reply to: Vermeil, Bruce on the radio (report)… + Vermeil on 101 (audio) #64883znModeratorFebruary 4, 2017 at 11:41 pm in reply to: Why Aren't Democrats Doing More to Support the Trump Resistance Movement? #64880znModeratorRepublicans on the run: CA Congressman runs from town hall as crowd chants ‘Shame on you!’
I’ll give him credit, at least Congressman Tom McClintock showed up to talk with his constituents. But, is sounds as if he defended the Republican agenda and the crowd was not having it:
Facing a packed auditorium and raucous crowd, Republican Congressman Tom McClintock on Saturday defended his party’s national agenda and voiced strong support for President Donald Trump’s disputed executive actions to scale back Obamacare, ban refugees from seven predominantly Muslim countries and build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
“Vote him out,” hundreds of demonstrators chanted outside the Tower Theatre in downtown Roseville, the Republican-heavy population center of McClintock’s sprawling congressional district. Inside the theater, more than 200 people gathered for a town-hall event hosted by McClintock.
Attendees, some carrying signs that read “Resist,” “Dump Tom McTrump” and “Climate change is real,” pressed McClintock to denounce Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, acknowledge the science supporting the human causes of climate change, and oppose Trump’s executive order temporarily restricting refugee admissions to the U.S.
“I believe that order is constitutional,” said McClintock, one of several comments that elicited boos at the hourlong event.
McClintock’s visit drew hundreds of people, most of whom had come to express opposition to the new administration. Many identified themselves as liberal Democrats and progressives, while party registration in McClintock’s district – which incorporates all or part of 10 counties spanning from Tahoe to Yosemite – is solidly Republican.
“This is really all about resisting the Trump agenda,” said Wendy Wood, chairwoman of Indivisible Sierra Nevada, a local chapter of a political organization formed in response to the election. “Most of us have never participated in political activism of any sort. Something is happening here, and people here are not happy with (Trump) and McClintock. We’re here to vote them out.”
Roseville police and fire officials capped attendance inside the theater at roughly 200 people. Those left outside voiced frustration about being locked out of the theater, some saying they had driven for hours simply to see McClintock face to face.
Inside the theater, McClintock took about a dozen audience questions. Some of the most passionate comments came from people who said they feared losing access to health care if Republicans press forward to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a clear replacement.
“What do you expect seniors and people with disabilities with low income to do if you take away our Medicare and Medicaid that we rely on to literally stay alive?” asked Amanda Barnes, who said she was paralyzed from her waist down after a hit-and-run accident in a crosswalk five years ago.
McClintock said his party did not yet have a replacement plan, but that there were several Republican-backed proposals still taking shape.
“The answer is a comprehensive bill that rescinds Obamacare in its entirety, and replaces it with reforms that put the patient back in charge of their own decisions, and give them the widest possible range of choices,” McClintock said. “And assure it’s within financial reach for the majority of Americans.”
The response drew shouts of disappointment, as did his comments on climate change.
“In any scientific arena, you are seeing a very vigorous debate over the extent to which man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming,” McClintock said. “Whether or not we destroy our economy for our children, our planet is going to continue to warm and cool as it has for billions of years.”
Many in attendance expressed general disappointment with Trump and called on McClintock to distance himself from recent executive actions, including Trump’s orders scaling back bank regulations and temporarily restricting U.S. entry for refugees as well as visitors from seven predominantly Muslim nations.
“I am terrified about Mr. Trump’s behavior. I literally haven’t slept,” said Jill Ruffman, 58, of Granite Bay. She criticized McClintock and Trump for supporting a House vote to undo an Obama administration rule that required the Social Security Administration to disclose information about disabled recipients with mental illness to the national gun background check system.
“I understand you do not like Donald Trump,” McClintock told the crowd at one point. “I sympathize with you. There have been elections where our side has lost. … Just a word of friendly advice: Remember that there were many people in America who disagreed and feared Barack Obama just as vigorously as you disagree with and fear Donald Trump.”
Several times he thanked the audience for the discourse, even if they disagreed.
McClintock left the theater at 11 a.m., immediately after the town hall concluded, escorted by police as he waded through a thick crowd of protesters who trailed him, shouting, “This is what Democracy looks like.”
GOP Rep. Tom McClintock leaves contentious town hall with police escort as protesters chant "Shame!" https://t.co/rndfTSph63 pic.twitter.com/H6ZbAdcfgp
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 4, 2017
znModeratorIt’s pretty confusing right now because it looked like they had already named a db coach. (?)
—
Alex Marvez @alexmarvez
Source tells @sn_nfl that Ejiro Evaro expected to leave Packers defensive staff to become Rams DBs coach
znModeratorBut, who knows. Maybe something is stirring. But i doubt it. But maybe.
w
vI’m not claiming dents in the mainstream. Just that the opposition (the resistance?) is evolving and growing.
They’re 2 different things.
You wanta talk about the mainstream, that’s one topic.
The opposition? Including to the mainstream? Different story.
znModeratorAnti-fascist rally, Philadelphia, 1939
znModeratorBut i haven’t seen a whole lot of ‘education’ or networking, myself. I aint marched in a decade or so though.
All I heard from this one was about the networking.
This may be one of the first huge conglomerate marches where people of all kinds and types and backgrounds came, and parents came with kids (particularly mothers with daughters), and veteran activists were there with first-timers, etc. It wasn’t a “dedicated cause” group. It was much bigger than that kind of thing demographically. All kinds of types and yes a lot of newfound synergy came out of it.
The stories I heard were all about networking and new connections and so on, and that’s at least in part because there was an entire generation there who grew up with and knows how to use social media. Lots of look for this, read that, have you heard about this, we can connect on that.
Plus its organizational history is interesting too. It started out being a little over color blind and then that led to some criticism and revision. The result was a drive toward what they called “intersectionality.” Which come to think of it is a better term than “alliance politics.” One of the leading intellectuals people quoted and talked about in the lead up to the event was bell hooks.
,
znModeratorznModeratorThird time’s the charm: Warner makes Hall of Fame
Jim Thomas
HOUSTON • What a journey. The Kurt Warner story now has gone from that Hy-Vee grocery store in Iowa to Canton.
Warner, the triggerman for the electric St. Louis Rams offenses known as the “Greatest Show on Turf,” was voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday. A finalist for the third year in a row, Warner made it to the final 10 candidates in each of the previous two years but no further in the selection process.
But this year, he broke through. The two-time NFL regular season MVP and MVP of Super Bowl XXXIV will be fitted for a gold jacket in August, during induction ceremonies at the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio.
Also selected to the Class of 2017 as modern-era inductees were kicker Morten Andersen, running back Terrell Davis, running back LaDainian Tomlinson, and defensive end Jason Taylor.
But after a marathon selection meetings of 8 hours 49 minutes, there was not good news for the two other finalists with St. Louis ties. Neither wide receiver Isaac Bruce, a stalwart of those Greatest Show teams, nor the late Don Coryell, who coached the exciting “Cardiac Cards” teams of the mid 1970s for the St. Louis Cardinals, were voted in.
Both were eliminated in the first round of cuts Saturday when the field of 15 finalists was initially trimmed to 10.
Warner becomes the fourth member of those Greatest Show teams voted into the Hall of Fame, joining running back Marshall Faulk, defensive back Aeneas Williams, and left tackle Orlando Pace.
Those high-scoring Rams became the first team in NFL history to score 500 points in three consecutive seasons _ from 1999-2001. The ’99 team defeated Tennessee in Super Bowl XXXIV; the ’01 squad was upset by New England in Super Bowl XXXVI.
Williams joined the part late, playing on the ’01 squad in his first season with St. Louis.
Warner becomes the 26th quarterback in the Hall of Fame, right on the heels of last year’s QB inductee Brett Favre. Warner was in camp with Favre in Green Bay way back in 1994, but was released in training camp.
That began a long-winding road that included stints in the Arena Football League with the Iowa Barnstormers, NFL Europe with the Amsterdam Admirals, and then another shot in the NFL when the St. Louis Rams signed him as a street free agent in 1998.
Warner was set to be Trent Green’s backup in 1999, but then Green suffered a season-ending knee injury in the team’s third preseason game. The then-obscure Warner stepped in as the starter, and the rest is NFL and St. Louis sports history.
Warner threw for a Super Bowl-record 414 yards against Tennessee, and still owns the three highest-passing yardage total in Super Bowl history. For all the great things he did in St. Louis, Warner probably wouldn’t have made the Hall of Fame without leading the Arizona Cardinals to the Super Bowl to conclude the 2008 season.
Two other Rams who played in St. Louis also are in the Hall of Fame, although they weren’t in the Gateway City for long. Running back Jerome Bettis played in St. Louis in 1995, the team’s inaugural season in the Midwest, before being traded to Pittsburgh during the 1996 draft. Offensive tackle Jackie Slater played just one game for the ’95 Rams before retiring _ he had played his first 19 seasons for the Los Angeles Rams.
znModeratorUm, no. She was crooked
Yes, it’s very important for Seattle Seahawks fans to believe that.
.
znModeratorThey’re missing the idea that many Americans who depend on health care, affordable health care, for example, have strict-father positions and voted for Trump against their interests. And this is something has been known for ages, that a lot of poor conservatives vote against their material interests, because they’re voting for their worldview. And the reason for it is that their moral worldview defines who they are. They are not going to vote against their own definition of who they are.
Repetition is a way of changing people’s brains. What Trump was doing all through the nomination campaign was that every day he managed to get on TV, and he would repeat different things that activated the same moral framework, and it really worked. In addition you have particular frames that were repeated: “Crooked Hillary,” “crooked Hillary,” “crooked Hillary,” over and over. There wasn’t anything Hillary did that was crooked. But he kept saying it until people believed it. And they believed it because it was heard enough times to strengthen the neural circuitry in their brains. It wasn’t just stupidity. It’s simply the way brains work.
he has the whole strict-father thing, moral hierarchy. If you have strict-father morality what that says is it’s your concern alone that matters, reteaching individual responsibility. That means responsibility for yourself, not social responsibility. Not caring about other citizens; that’s weak. You should care about yourself; that’s strong. That is how he sees that the world naturally works. There is a hierarchy of morality because the strict father in a family gets his position of strength because he supposedly knows right from wrong, and in that there is an assumption that those who are most moral should rule.
znModeratorZN,
But what’s the point in responding to a thread in which Wolff’s video is central, essential, when you haven’t even bothered to watch it?
Well there’s no rule how threads are supposed to go (other than being civil and avoiding the usual stuff having to do with obscenity etc, which are givens).
In fact, we even (paradoxically) enshrined that in the board rules:
from Board Rules & Policies
link: http://theramshuddle.com/topic/board-rules-policies/
Develop your own voice, digress at will, bring all your talents, interests, knowledge, and opinions to the table, and encourage others to do the same.
I hope you see the humor in that. Our rules include digressing at will.
What’s the point? The point is to say what’s on my mind in response to any aspect of the thread that catches my eye. Same as everyone else. Fair enough?
Is this getting a little sensitive? Let’s crank it back a bit, if so. We’re allies, and any “along the way” conflicts of vision are just there to be acknowledged as we each then get on with the wonderful crazy business of each being ourselves, though ourselves (hopefully) in alliance.
znModeratorBut I also don’t see any Stalin-level demands for purity in the piece. I see a (correct) observation that most of the marchers have failed to recognized the big picture, the one that extends to women’s rights beyond their own personal concerns. I think that’s just true. They were largely out there because of concern about the chauvinistic tone of Trump and his supporters, and because of concern about Planned Parenthood etc. That, broadly speaking, was the impetus. The writer points out that that is hardly a comprehensive approach to women’s issues.
Unfortunately, I think he is dismissive of the march for that reason, when another person might have pointed out that it was a big step in the right direction that people are standing up for themselves. We haven’t even been doing THAT much in this country. So standing up for self may be the first step. Standing up for others comes later in the growth of the movement.
In a lot of respects we agree. Except for this. I don’t think women’s rights as an issue ever reduces to simple personal concerns. The minute you evoke the concept of rights, then it opens up to everything. Nor does what you say describe the beliefs, motivations, political vision, etc. of the people I know who attended—so clearly the entire thing was a far more massive alliance of different views than the writer of that particular article is (apparently) capable of seeing.
Heck there’s just absolutely no such thing as ONE view of women’s rights among women’s rights activists. I don’t think it is even possible there COULD be such a thing. So for example I have heard it said, it’s not like the march spoke for the concerns of socialist feminism. Except…everyone I know who went (and it was a lot of people) IS an active, informed, politically wide-ranging socialist feminist. So so much for that generalization.
It’s alliance politics time and no simple reduction is ever going to adequately cover what is going on. So why even bother. Assume it is multi-faceted and rooted in wide-ranging alliance.
That way we avoid the one clear absolute error that writer makes—completely invalid empty reductive over-generalizations about what millions of people involved in things like this are thinking.
No matter what over-generalization anyone makes, I am able to point to scores of people I know personally and say “no that doesn’t apply.”
.
znModeratorSee, ZN, this is why it helps to actually read what people are saying — or watch their videos — instead of repeating what you mistakenly assume they must be saying, even after you’ve been corrected several times on that already.
No one is making “utopian claims” here. Not Wolff. Not me. We ARE discussing this in rational, analytical terms, using empirically verifiable evidence to support our views. More than two centuries’ worth and counting.
And I have yet to see you counter any of that with evidence of your own. Instead, you just keep claiming to be above “purism” or “utopian claims” which aren’t in the picture here. At all.
So, again, have you watched the video, and if so, would you kindly comment ABOUT that video?
I didn’t say a word about the video either way. That;s not what I was addressing.
I was addressing your claim that there’s only one valid political end-deduction.
I was saying that to me that’s purism and to me it’s the old dream of universalizing reason. It’s vote casting time and I am speaking up for a different way to see that.
And on that, my best guess is, we will only end up differing. Which is fine.
.
znModeratorTom Waits, The Earth Died Screaming
Rudy’s on the midway
And Jacob’s in the hole
The monkey’s on the ladder
The devil shovels coal
With crows as big as airplanes
The lion has three heads
And someone will eat the skin the he sheds
And the earth died screaming
While I lay dreamingWell, the earth died screaming
While I lay dreaming
Dreaming of youWell, hell doesn’t want you
And heaven is full
Bring me some water
Put it in this skull
I walk between the raindrops
I wait in Bug House square
And the army ants
They leave mothin’ but the bones
Well, the earth died screaming
While I lay dreamingWell, the earth died screaming
While I lay dreaming
Well, the earth died screaming
While I lay dreaming
Dreaming of youThere was thunder, there was lightning
Then the stars went out
And the moon fell from the sky
It rained mackerel, it rained trout
And the great day of wrath has come
And here’s mud in your big red eye
And the poker’s in the fire
And the locusts take the sky
Well, the earth died screaming
While I lay dreamingWell, the earth died screaming
While I lay dreaming
Well, the earth died screaming
While I lay dreaming
Dreaming of you
Well, dreaming of you
Well, dreaming of you
Well, dreaming of youznModeratorSo, if I say 2+2=4, I’m a purist?
No, because that’s an empirical issue.
To me rational, deductive constructs making utopian claims about human social and political conflicts are not empirical. Even if they say they are.So if someone says (as did Edmund Burke) that because we are fallen creatures, weak and with limited perspectives and driven by only partially understood naked self-interest, we therefore need hierarchical societies–that is human beings must be ruled in a top-down scheme–he is making a universalizing claim based on particular a priori beliefs.
That’s not simple math. Burke remember also thought he was simply giving us the clear and direct, empirical truth based on reason and clear analysis. Well, he wasn’t. It was a series of deductions from beliefs he held. If we say to Burke, you’re wrong because of this or that factor, he would say the same to us. And there’s no truth god to sort it out for us.
znModeratorAs already mentioned, I’m not a “purist” either, nor are the vast majority of Marxians I’ve read. Nor is Professor Wolff.
Remember this is all my vote and how I see it. That’s the only approach I have to this (and the only one I personally want to have.) So to me, anyone who says there is only one valid belief about x, y, or z is being a purist.
Anyone who says the equivalent of “and if you don’t believe x or y or z you’re not real” is a purist.
I am not being philosophical about purism. Meaning, I don’t have a lengthy analytic rational take on it. I see it as occurring any time someone says “unless you accept doctrine x you’re lacking.” Or at least that kind of statement when they make it is purist.
I don’t believe in doctrinal purity in analysis in any way, shape, or form. I don;t think any human being is perceptive enough to make claims like that.
….
znModeratorthat was EXACTLY the writers whole entire point.
If that were his point (and it’s not, not really) there are interesting and good ways to make it.
Not outdated, old left insulting bad analysis.
Not everyone bitching about class, my friend, is making a valid point.
AND I might add that to me a real analysis–a good one that sees far and digs deep enough—recognizes that you cannot separate race gender and class in america and have a valid picture.
Old left warriors making purist complaints about gender and race are not helping things. To me they’re part of the problem.
/..
znModeratorThis particular author, unfortunately, went the right-wing route of just making sweeping statements about the motives of all the women at these marches, without presenting anything to support any of those statements.
To me he was just an example of something I run across now and then…a pre-feminist anti-war (from the 60s) old left type who is just not helping anymore.
…
znModeratorAll the rest is denial and window dressing.
My vote is different. I am not a purist and in fact almost out of instinct resist purism. I don’t believe anyone can arrive at a valid view of how where when why history will go a certain direction, or name what’s best for all of us, or what can will or should work. I apply that equally to pro- and anti-capitalists. Neoliberals are stuck so deeply in a particular theoretical model that they basically end up being what amounts to a religion. To me it’s no different. Left negative mirror images of that are no better, IMO,and have many of the same problems, just the left version of them. Which is fine…let a thousand flowers bloom…EXCEPT when it becomes divisive and therefore crippling (not saying that’s happening here.)
That’s my vote. True to my own convictions on this, I won’t try to “debate” anyone into accepting it, or offer it as the only possible rational view. Just expounding. Tossing my pennies in.
I am always an historian on these things, not a philosopher. By “historian” I don’t mean interest in the past. I mean that when things are complex and involve many moving parts and many kinds of responses, then what will happen will be much more organic, and that history shows us to expect that. To me philosophers deduce things from assumptions and principles on the basis of abstract reason, and, history also shows us that no human person sees enough for that kind of deductive reasoning to ever really be complete enough or nuanced enough or sensitive enough or dialectical enough to hold up.
Again, that’s just a vote. How I see it.
If others see it different than the real question to me is, well then what are our points of alliance now, in this time and place.
.
znModeratorWell, i agree with the Writer. Completely.
Sure, no doubt there were plenty of women like the one’s you describe. But the majority were like what he described, imho
There’s nothing to agree with, it’s a bad analysis.
I am always resistant to “haven’t kept up” old left types like that. You can usually recognize them by their stalinist drive for purity. There’s only one doctrine that counts kind of thing. Purists are to me an internal problem of the left. They’re like the old drunk uncles of left analysis.
IMHO, for one thing, if we don’t have alliance politics now we will have nothing.
But that’s just to address one impulse there in an essay like that. He could have made the same overly-homogenizing, outdated pop culture analysis dependent on questionable and superseded concepts (such as the millions duped by images schtick) without ALSO being insulting. If so I would have only political/analytic objections.
But on top of it, he was insulting.
February 4, 2017 at 9:29 am in reply to: Rams working out which of their free agents fit new schemes #64800znModeratorNFL source: #Rams UFA CB Trumaine Johnson an even better fit for Wade Phillips defense than previous #Rams defensive scheme
That could be interesting. Though, that sounds like an outsider speaking (NFL source, not Rams source). For all we know, it could be that Phillips himself doesn’t think so.
znModeratorMost women demonstrators who marched against Trump were no doubt well intentioned within their limited perspective.
I can’t count the number of women I know who were in that march. And none of them are restricted to the stereotypes this limited-minded guy wants to promote. And we’re talking some heavy-duty, real-thing leftists here, and I mean people who could reduce that insulting essay to rubble without working up a sweat. I am talking about people who would hold their own here and fit right in and add a lot, except they’re not Rams fans so I probably couldn’t get them to post here.
He actually thinks that the female millions involved in and/or sympathetic with that march are homogenously the same and were all equally susceptible to the same centralized manipulation, so for example everyone wore pussyhats because that was promoted by one place/person/entity that says some stuff a certain way on their website. Sorry but. That. Is. Just. Stupid. Generally speaking, if someone from the left has dismissive stereotypes of an entire category of person, they are not shining examples of progressive analysis.
As a rule any form of top-down analysis (ie. “everyone but me is a victim of this thing because they were led to it by a chosen few”), it’s not real analysis at all and certainly not leftist in any reasonable way.
Oh and btw women were smoking in the 1890s.
When a small number of intellectual or leisured society women began smoking hand-made Egyptian or Turkish cigarettes in the 1890s it was associated with emancipation and the ‘new woman’.
-
AuthorPosts
