Jeff Fisher: "Tre has made a decision not to communicate with us." Mason doesn't currently count toward Rams' roster limit.

— Jack Wang (@thejackwang) July 31, 2016

Tre Mason is on the "Did Not Report" list. @CoachJeffFisher says Tre hasn't talked with anyone from the @RamsNFL since season ended.

— Liz Habib (@LizHabib) July 31, 2016

"We are more concerned about Tre Mason's well being than his football career," @CoachJeffFisher

— Liz Habib (@LizHabib) July 31, 2016

Rams T Rob Havenstein is on PUP list because of a "foot issue" @CoachJeffFisher says he's day to day

— Liz Habib (@LizHabib) July 31, 2016

Funny hearing the #Rams fan in stands screaming at Jared Goff to "throw the damn ball down the field" (#1stdayofcamp #instalation)

— Vincent Bonsignore (@DailyNewsVinny) July 31, 2016

Todd Gurley said he isn’t recognized a lot in LA yet and when he is, it’s as “that guy from the burger commercial.”

— Rich Hammond (@Rich_Hammond) July 31, 2016

vid: Bucky Brooks

http://www.nfl.com/videos/los-angeles-rams#

==

Concentration with @KingTutt_chdown and @nspruce22 #RamsCamp https://t.co/PhBkyDOdiF

— Los Angeles Rams (@RamsNFL) July 31, 2016

Little bit of QB-WR pitch and catch. #RamsCamp pic.twitter.com/2QOI3Pf0fl

— Christopher Dowell (@pikebishop) July 30, 2016

Rams QB Jared Goff getting ready for first practice. pic.twitter.com/oFwK3JtZm5

— Gary Klein (@LATimesklein) July 30, 2016

Little sampling of what you'll get on Snapchat from #RamsCamp.
👻 : msmmns210 pic.twitter.com/0c99DeUeAu

— Myles Simmons (@MylesASimmons) July 30, 2016

Billy_T wrote:

Okay, so I step back, breathe, etc.

What I’m saying is it appeared to me that you were calling me out for not recognizing the importance of race. I don’t think that’s fair at all. I recognize its importance daily. But the reason I’m saying we’re talking about different things here is that the very same people who say it’s easy for Sanders and his supporters, because, white privilege, are themselves privileged whites. So, to me, the logical thing to do (if this, then that) is throw out that variable, because it’s one they hold in common, and instead focus on the idea of how we should do effective politics, make good policy, go slow, go pragmatic, speed that up, push harder for better legislation, or be satisfied with a fraction of the loaf, etc. etc.

I’m talking about white pundits who tried/try to shame young Sanders’ supporters via the use of race; or Democratic surrogates for HRC who, also white and far more privileged, did the same.

So, it’s not about me failing to listen to POCs or not understanding their plight. I see them largely left out of the debate, and it predominantly being between whites only — in government, in the media, and online. I didn’t see this particular thread as being one between POCs and whites, but it looks like you did.

Again, that’s one of the key places we were talking past each other.

Well thanks for bringing it back down and sorry if I put some things wrong in the heat of discussion. I also see far better than I did how yeah we were talking about different things.

I didn’t see the author as shaming, exactly, though I certainly didn’t appreciate his approach—while reading it I kept thinking I could have done a better job with the same material. And in the world I run in there are a lot of those—Hillary guys who are nazis about it. I am in the difficult position, in fact, of both backing down the Hillary nazis while simultaneously arguing with the leftists I know that Trump is genuinely so much worse that there’s really only one pragmatic thing to do. Where I live, I am very close to getting voted off the island. But it;s the civil war and both the union people and the confederates are voting me off simultaneously. I don’t think I will be allowed to speak at my trial.

Billy_T wrote:

I’m not seeing people dismissing race. I see some using it to steer the conversation back to mainstream Democratic/GOP status quo.

Yeah, that;s the interpretation I call dismissing race.

Listen to people. Sanders did not draw minority votes. People say why. It’s because they have more to fear and lose from Trump so they had to build defenses against that.

By telling those people they’re just steering things wrong is kind of not to hear them.

Which may be why in the abstract they don’t trust you…meaning, they don’t trust people who make the same calculation.

If you can’t hear that this is a big and important part of the discussion, and that means hearing some things we don’t like, then, we’re just simply not being real about it.

Look at the books we read. How many are from THIS list?

http://www.bustle.com/articles/144531-18-books-every-white-ally-should-read

And I ain’t read em all believe me. So this is not some “who’s got the brightest 10-speed” kind of competition thing.

….

Billy_T wrote:

Well, not to get all third-grader on ya, but the editorial started the name calling.

;>)

So, I get your point. Mine is different. I see a stark case of the privileged playing Marie Antoinette while the poor and the oppressed are getting crushed. I see the “go slow and be pragmatic” approach as contributing mightily to their oppression. And, as mentioned, to me, it’s not even working as they say it’s intended to work. We’re going backward on most issues, not forward, even slowly.

I think, my old friend, you are just missing the point. And frankly I don’t care about the name-calling. I know where it;s coming from. It doesn’t bother me. And I am just as much a target of it as you are so I know we don’t have to take it badly. I don’t.

IMO people on the left like us are obligated to look at white male privilege and not get defensive about it. Just to be informed.

Then after taking it seriously we have to make the decisions we have to make.

I am btw part of the reasonable and pragmatic crowd. I don’t consider that incompatible in the least with being on the left. And I am not saying “go slow” to anything. Neither was the editorial. In fact there may be more Edmund Burke in me than you…I have always argued Burke can be dialectically reconfigured into a left Burke. And the left Burke in me says, us boys with abstract ideas are a positive menace. Go out and work with what’s real.

I don’t see anything about the “who to vote for” issue as having to do with “delaying progress.” Heck if we depended on presidents for progress we would never have gotten anything. Real progressive change is not top/down. So I don’t believe in hero presidents. I do however believe in menace presidents. I believe presidents and parties in power CAN do harm. So the urgency is, prevent the catastrophe. It won’t NOT be a catastrophe. And for those of us in the loving arms of white straight male privilege…it will be far less of one.

And btw those without white straight male privilege include the poor and THEY are always far more quickly crushed than we are.

You can’t separate race and class and gender. Not if you want to have a real discussion of the real problems.

And for the record I am never a purist about anything. I don’t believe in abstract ideals. I believe in practical action, just action in the name of left principles. Theories don;t interest me. To me theories always look like dogma. That’s just inescapable—it’s how I see things.

And part of that means seeing, and seeing in our case means actually seeing to what extent we actually really genuinely ARE protected by white straight male privilege.

…

Billy_T wrote:

Also: I reject the frame that it’s supposedly easy for people of privilege to hold fast to their principles,

Oh as it happens I believe that one bit completely.

I see it on an everyday basis, too.

And of course privilege here means “white privilege.”

You look long and hard and close enough at white privilege, you can see—to quote Noah Cross from Chinatown—it’s “capable of ANYTHING.”

wv wrote:

Obviously, not written by a Bernie supporter.

I’m tempted to do a point by point bashing of that article,
but I’m just done with the Bernie vs Hillary vs Jill issue.
It just aint fun anymore, for me.

w
v

Yeah it was an editorial of a type and tone I generally just scoff at. But still it’s a time for all sorts of views.

But why ain’t The Debate fun no more. Honestly asking out of curiosity.

#Rams had a mandatory team meeting this morning. According to sources, it doesn't appear Tre Mason showed up

— Vincent Bonsignore (@DailyNewsVinny) July 29, 2016

===

FYI on #Rams Tre Mason: what makes situation more complicated is inability of team to communicate with him 1/2

— Vincent Bonsignore (@DailyNewsVinny) July 29, 2016

===

2/2 so while there is little #Rams expectation at this point Mason will show up, it wouldn't be a complete shock if he did.

— Vincent Bonsignore (@DailyNewsVinny) July 29, 2016

U.S. Economy Would Be ‘Diminished’ Under Trump’s Economic Plan, New Analysis Says
Report marks the first attempt at quantifying economic benefits and costs across Trump’s proposals

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/u-s-economy-would-be-diminished-under-trumps-economic-plan-new-analysis-says/

A new analysis concludes Donald Trump’s economic proposals, taken at face value, could produce a prolonged recession and heavy job losses that would fall hardest on low- and middle-income workers.

The Moody’s Analytics report, which a person close to the Trump campaign strongly disputed, is the first that attempts to quantify the cumulative economic benefits and costs of Mr. Trump’s proposals on taxes, trade, immigration and spending. It determines that full adoption of those policies would sharply reduce economic output during his first term and reduce employment by 3.5 million jobs.

Under almost any scenario, the report says, “the U.S. economy will be more isolated and diminished.”

The Moody’s analysis outlines scenarios that show more muted effects on the economy, assuming that Mr. Trump’s proposals are slimmed down, either voluntarily or as a result of legislative negotiations. Under the latter model, Moody’s assumes the tax cuts are whittled down sharply and that a trade war with China and Mexico is averted. The result is slower economic growth but not a recession.

The Moody’s analysis says Mr. Trump’s spending and tax-cut commitments, which include increases in veterans’ and border security funding but no changes in entitlement programs, would require massive spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget to avoid $1 trillion deficits.

“There is a gulf between what he says he wants on taxes and spending and what it will take to make the budget arithmetic work,” said Mr. Zandi.

Mr. Trump’s tax plan would lower tax rates across the board and limit some deductions. The Tax Policy Center, a project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, said the plan would cut federal revenues by $9.5 trillion, while the Tax Foundation, a think tank that favors lower taxes, said the plan would cost $10 trillion over a decade, even after assuming higher economic growth.

The report singles out trade and immigration policies as the most detrimental to the economy in the short run because they could sharply boost labor and goods prices at a time when there’s less slack in the labor market. “It is a massive supply shock to the economy that’s very pernicious, and the Fed doesn’t know how to respond to that,” said Mr. Zandi.

Moody’s concludes that those price pressures would force the central bank to raise interest rates at a faster-than-desired pace, contributing to a recession in 2018 that could produce a 25% drop in the S&P 500.

The adviser close to the Trump campaign said any analysis oversold the costs of Mr. Trump’s trade and immigration policies by failing to account for how substandard enforcement of trade rules and border controls have depressed wages for U.S. workers.

On trade, Mr. Trump has said he would use the threat of a 45% tariff on goods from China and 35% on non-oil imports from Mexico as a negotiating tool in seeking better trade and currency terms. Moody’s calculates that tariffs on imports from Mexico and China could increase goods import prices by 15%, raising overall consumer prices by 3%—all before factoring in the costs of retaliation against U.S. exporters.

The Moody’s economists warn that those tariffs would raise uncertainty for businesses, reducing American exports while corroding growth. While higher tariffs would quickly lead importers to move production to other countries, this would take time and also raise costs for businesses.

Separate projections made earlier this year by Peter Petri of Brandeis University found that Mr. Trump’s proposed tariffs would widen the U.S. trade deficit for goods by around $275 billion, or an 37% increase above last year’s level.

On immigration, Moody’s estimates that a crackdown on illegal immigration through forced deportations would reduce slack in the labor force but also leave more positions unfilled, particularly in industries such as agriculture where native-born workers have been reluctant to seek work even at modestly higher wages. Labor shortages in those industries could prompt job losses in upstream and downstream industries and also boost inflation as labor costs run higher, the report said.