ComradeKayAdams

Your third line needs work. It is one syllable short. Otherwise, good job! Long gone by our pick… McDuffie, Booth, or Gordon. Let’s go cornerback! Super lazy, Dan… You write haikus like Kelvin Benjamin runs routes. TWO BILLS DRIVE POETS: we are counting syllables and will impose fines. I enjoyed this one! The third line is redundant, But it made me laugh!

Respect special teams. A new punter on day three? Matt Haack is not good. 4merper4mer, Where is your haiku structure? Can you try again? Poetry is fun! No more negativity. You got this, Brennan! Ugh! Et tu, Dopey?! A name that is apropos… Why do you hate Dan?!

Um…sorta. Lessons abound for all! Let’s discuss: What the left can learn: 1. The value of nuclear: Germany and most far-lefties should talk to France about it…the benefits, the costs, the technical risks, etc. They will feel much better about nuclear after this long conversation with the French. If Germany hadn’t abandoned nuclear after Fukushima, Europe as a whole wouldn’t be nearly as dependent on Russian fossil fuels as they currently are. What the right can learn: My goodness…where do I start… 1. Basic import/export facts: Russia makes up only a small percent (~7%?) of our total fossil fuel imports. Canada is our #1 exporter by far. Also, U.S. fossil fuel production has never gone down since Biden took office. Furthermore, no additional global fossil fuel production is necessary in order to facilitate cutting Russia off from the international energy trade market. A complete rerouting of the current trade market would suffice. If you don’t believe me, look up global import/export data for each major country and play around with the arithmetic for yourselves. 2. Keystone pipeline: It was always going to take several years to come online, so it’s not a viable solution for either the current Russia-Ukraine fiasco or the current COVID-related cost-push inflation fiasco. 3. Drilling permits: There’s no need to issue new ones when fossil fuel corporations already have an abundance of sea/land plots that are currently untouched. 4. Nationalization of energy: Lots of right-wingers want Biden to take firm control of the situation and alter our country’s energy trade market. Fine…but keep in mind that U.S. energy is controlled by private corporations, so you are technically advocating for at least a temporary “socialization” of the national energy sector. 5. Energy independence: You are free to prioritize this aspiration if you wish, but keep in mind that U.S. energy will continue to be a tradable private commodity on the global market. Therefore, it will continue to be subject to the global market whims of energy supply/demand laws, a.k.a. global cost fluctuations. 6. The many tentacles of the U.S. oligarchy: The most important point for righties to understand because it undergirds much of contemporary American politics, especially as it pertains to energy commerce. The fossil fuel corporate oligarchs have propagandized you to think that anthropogenic global warming is even a scientific debate. The manufacturing industry oligarchs are behind ridiculous Supreme Court cases like WVA v. EPA, which aims to undermine the practical federal power to regulate pollution. U.S. corporate oligarchs of all stripes have colluded to ensure opacity in international commerce transactions, which makes federal sanction impositions much more difficult to enforce (relative to the rest of the industrialized countries that comprise the West). I could go on and on with this subcategory, but you probably get the point… What both the left and the right can learn: 1. Long-term planning: Everyone in the West should have started much sooner with renewables. Ideally, we all should have been dramatically increasing our fundamental R+D budgets during the era of the 1970’s energy crisis. By not doing so and by not having a sufficiently diversified energy portfolio at this point in time, we have ceded a lot of economic leverage to Russia (and China). 2. Basic patience: Putin invaded Ukraine rather suddenly (yah yah, I understand Russia had a lengthy military buildup at the border…). It takes a bit of time to reroute a gigantic global energy trade market. And given present inflation issues and risks of further energy supply shocks, it kinda makes sense for the West to slowly wean ourselves from Russian fossil fuels instead of forcing an abrupt cut-off. 3. Problems with U.S. imperialism: All of our Russian oil import issues could have magically gone away if we had healthy (i.e. open) trade relations with countries like, say, Venezuela. But in Venezuela’s example case, we are sanctioning their people to death because we hate global left-wing politics and we want to install our latest hand-chosen coup puppet, Juan Guaido, who will do our economically exploitative bidding in ways that no leftist would ever allow.

Good interpretation, though the rest of that “story” does matter greatly. The Russian cultural ties to Donetsk and Luhansk matter. The strategic military use of the Crimean peninsula matters. Aggressive NATO expansions toward Russian borders (for the benefit of the military-industrial complex) matter. U.S. meddling into Ukrainian politics (for the benefit of the entire corporate oligarchy) matters. But yes, we agree that energy is the underlying source of this international conflict.

Sure, but I’d like to think that the whole point of this thread is for everyone to gain a better understanding of the causes, who’s to blame, what’s going on currently, and paths to take that can solve the crisis. My own assessment, FWIW: 1. The causes: My one-sentence summary is that this is a typical clash between rival imperialist competitors (U.S. and Russia) in a major economic, cultural, and political market (all of Europe, really…not just Ukraine and the Slavic homelands). A slightly more nuanced take requires thinking beyond the classic left vs. right political paradigm and into a populist vs. establishment one. Everyone here understands that Russia is a corrupt corporate oligarchy with an authoritarian ringleader (Putin). But would everyone also agree that the United States also functions as a corrupt corporate oligarchy whose M.I.C.-rooted foreign policy arm is driven by economic exploitation and not some noble illusory support of global democracy and the preservation of human rights abroad? How about the idea that Biden, Trump, Obama, living Bush, pervert Clinton, pantsuit Clinton too, dead Bush, Reagan, etc… were/are all war criminals and political duopolists whose variations in foreign policy decisions were/are pond ripples above an underlying tidal wave of imperialism? How Trump was another in a long line of heavy-handed American supremacists who may have been less of a bully interventionist (relative to Obama and Biden) in some key respects (Libya, Syria, Iraq) but more of one in others (JCPOA/Iran, Yemen, Cuba, Venezuela, certain dealings with Russia, also never got us out of Afghanistan like he promised, etc.)? How the M.I.C. budget keeps rising every year regardless of the political tribe affiliation of the sitting president, and this is why the American people are told that they cannot have basic things that every other civilized country take for granted like universal health care?? No?! OMG seriously? Then we have a HUGE problem here. Shall we carefully go over every single f*$king coup, regime change war, embargo, and sanction since WW2? The Afghanistan Papers? Collateral damage data from drone strikes? Yemeni civil war? Palestine? Activities in the Horn of Africa? OMG what we’re currently doing in Syria??!! What we’re currently doing throughout Latin America beyond the Cuba and Venezuelan sanctions?? By all means, someone PLEASE defend American post-WW2 imperialistic foreign policy for me…and do so from a secular humanist, Judeo-Christian, and/or Constitutional perspective… <<< insert gif of Kay furiously shoveling popcorn (seasoned…no butter…f*$k the dairy industry too) into her mouth. >>> 2. Blame game: It’s all on Russia. None of their many listed grievances against NATO (many of which I found reasonable, up until the Ukraine invasion happened…) can justify this unprovoked military aggression against a sovereign nation. Putin did not come close to exhausting his diplomatic options. 3. What’s going on currently: We’ll just have to rely on the news media and navigate a bit through some of the fog of war and the propaganda. 4. How to fix the crisis: No idea. Does anyone, really? Direct combat between nuclear powers should always be off the table. Proxy combat is very treacherous, but it may eventually become necessary. Sanctions probably present the most viable options, unfortunately, but how can we tailor them in such a way as to maximally affect the Russian oligarchs and minimally affect the Russian people and the rest of the world? I’m very uneasy of the manifold repercussions of banning those oligarchs from SWIFT. One major leverage we do have over Putin is the fact that their national economy is extremely imbalanced and reliant on fossil fuel exports. Our very first option, of course, should be diplomacy where NATO offers a series of concessions (back to its original status during the 90’s?) in order to get Russia to cease fire and withdraw their troops. Western hubris and Putin’s crossing of the metaphorical Rubicon into the physical country of Ukraine, however, may have already rendered this option moot. Something I want to quickly challenge here is the pervasive notion that energy independence through greatly increased domestic fossil fuel production is the West’s best solution. Never mind the anthropogenic climate change debate. I would encourage everyone to look at tabulated data of various energy categories for Russia, the U.S., Germany, the rest of Europe, and basically the rest of the world. Scan over what is exported, imported, and consumed in each country. Look at their trade partners. Look at production before and after the pandemic. The takeaway here should be that a concerted global effort to reroute energy trade markets at current production levels is more than sufficient to isolate Russia. Some basic degree of cooperation is expected from the major Middle East oil countries, however. I assume Venezuela and Iran will align with Russia, while China will try to play both major sides. Thank you for your cathartic post, Leh-nerd, and don’t forget to vote in the 2022 TBD PPP Subforum Moderator election!! Who do you serve?! Who do we deserve?! Toward whom will you electorally swerve? Leh-nerd: “Irv. IRV. For the love of God, Kay…IRV. Just please stop typing. Ugh. I could use another vacation in Florida. I hate you.”

UGH. Full apologies, Tibsy. You were right and I was wrong. I completely underestimated Putin’s capacity for economic brinkmanship. Is it safe to assume that Russia and China arranged a sweet trade partnership beforehand?? The latest I heard was that China was prevaricating on Ukraine. Yeah, the political tribalism at PPP is super annoying and is also missing the mark. Normally this is the moment where I would insert a lengthy rant against all facets of the bipartisan post-1989 American imperialism (with particular emphasis on NATO aggression, Yanukovych ousting, etc.), but the brutal reality here is that the Ukrainian invasion is 100% Putin’s fault and 0% anyone else’s. At least Nord Stream 2 is dead now. GOOD.

Good to hear! A Russian invasion of Ukraine is highly unlikely because all the players in this stupid game are ultimately rational actors. Everyone here stands to lose so much more in the long run (economically and militarily) than they can ever hope to win. So fingers crossed, but yes it’s looking a lot more like political theater serving to benefit multiple international leaders, namely Biden and Putin, with their respective constituencies’ approval. The worldwide military-industrial complex is also benefiting greatly, of course, and this may very well be the main motivation. Just quickly scanning through the posts in this thread…it appears that (yet again) the corporate mainstream media has been irresponsibly framing the debate through the lens of right versus left, GOP versus Democrats, and Trump versus Biden. Very few have been taking the far more important introspective approach and asking what our own country’s responsibility has been for this escalation? Why is it any of our business to dictate how economic trade relations between Russia and its nearest European Union neighbors are to proceed? As much as I personally despise the Russian natural gas industry, for example, doesn’t a country like Germany have the sovereign right to seek energy price relief from COVID-related inflationary effects? And what about the aggressive military posturing from NATO? Wouldn’t the United States feel increasingly threatened, for example, if China was moving troops closer to our borders from Canada and Mexico? For anyone still wondering what Russia’s endgame is, the best guess would be “economic leverage into the European market.” All of Putin’s aggressive military posturing strikes me as his own unique style of diplomacy. Is he trying to rebuild the Slavic empire from the glory days of the Soviet Union, with the invasion of Ukraine as the first key step? Very doubtful. Way too costly, IMO.

OK, but I don’t see a single sentence in the article that is untruthful. The author calls out Senator Manchin for what he clearly is: a crony capitalist of the fossil fuel industry, legislating based on personal financial gain rather than what’s best for his constituents and the country and the planet. One isn’t necessary because Sinema’s political career is already effectively over. Her resistance to Build Back Better was too radical a departure from the political platform on which she ran in Arizona. As a result, her state approval numbers are now in the basement, though I’m pretty sure she doesn’t care. She knew what she was doing and will be leaving Washington on a very golden parachute. Did you read the article?? He’s NOT looking out for the interests of his constituents! The article described two major ways in which this is the case: higher state utility costs and lower state health/environmental standards. I’ll offer several more that weren’t mentioned: 1. Build Back Better Act: About 70% of all West Virginians and about 90% of registered Democrats from West Virginia have been in favor of the bill. The inflation fearmongering and deficit hawkery that Manchin has used to justify his contrarian position (on a $1.7 trillion bill spread out over 10 years and embedded within a currently $30 trillion national debt, mind you…) contradicts all mainstream macroeconomic rationality as well as Manchin’s own lengthy legislative voting record. 2. General neoliberalism: West Virginia actually has a very rich history of labor activism, but center-right poopheads like Manchin have repeatedly gone out of their way to undermine it. We can start with universal health care and continue on down the long line of Reaganomics nonsense that Manchin has been peddling in opposition to the interests of the working class. West Virginians don’t even care about the coal mining jobs, per se. They care about jobs that provide an acceptable standard of living and that allow them to remain living in their home state. 3. Climate change economic legislation: Manchin has had numerous opportunities throughout his career to advocate for statewide transition program provisions in climate change-related bills that would have allowed coal industry workers to move into new careers (like in renewable energies?). These types of transition programs should have begun 40-50 years ago in West Virginia, or as soon as everyone realized coal was a dying industry. Manchin has never advocated for them. Instead, he has been downplaying, misleading, and flat out lying about anthropogenic global warming. 4. Progressive power shift: For the most part, West Virginia is a socially conservative state, so the social policies of progressive Democrats tend to scare them. Manchin’s (and Sinema’s) uncooperative antics over the Biden administration’s BBB Act, however, have done more to augment and embolden the progressive wing within the Democratic Party than any other political action seen since the Great Recession aftermath. It’s not uncommon for West Virginians to prioritize social policies over economic ones, so I’m sure many of them aren’t too happy with this development.

Thank you for noticing, Leh-nerd! And did you know that us vegan ones smell the best? Yes, I believe this to be factually correct! SCIENCE, Leh-nerd. Envision a stalking field scientist/home invader, with the narrating voice of Richard Dawkins: “As the vegan female variant of h o m o sapien casually emerges from her urban porcelain nest, the olfactory splendors of her dietary remnants fill the open room. Her whole-foods plant-based diet begets a rich aroma that conjures memories of my adolescence in Oxfordshire, running through wondrous dewy spring fields of magnolia, lilac, and wisteria. It is THE delineating signature of her presence, in marked contrast with the effluvious residues of her male counterparts who subsist primarily on meat, dairy, and eggs.” EDIT: silly language filter for "h o m o" sapien.

Great post! Hard to disagree with anything here. Based solely on what you’ve typed in this thread, I might broadly classify you as a “populist centrist” rather than a “classical liberal.” Tulsi Gabbard resonated well with populist centrists in 2020. Does that make sense? If not, maybe think geometrically. Think of the spectrum of politics as divided into a 2-dimensional box along left-right and populist-establishment axes, with the 4 corners as follows: 1. Left populist (roughly represented with Bernie Sanders). 2. Right populist (roughly represented with Donald Trump). 3. Right establishment (best represented with Mitch McConnell). 4. Left establishment (best represented with Joe Biden). 2020 Tulsi (she has moved further right and slightly more establishment since then) was the connecting tissue between corners #1 and #2. I think you may be somewhere along that nebulous middle edge region. Many Americans are! Slight digression: Elizabeth Warren was the 2020 connecting tissue between corners #1 and #4. AOC is the heir apparent to octogenarian Bernie, but she’s been drifting toward corner #4 since March 2020. The civil war within the anti-establishment left (corner #1…my people!) that I alluded to in my previous post mostly concerns political strategy of whether to gain actual political power by unifying more with corner #2 (through third parties, most likely) or with corner #4 (through the Democratic Party’s primary process). The questions then become: which corner to trust more, what policies to concede, what policies to compromise on, what policies to promulgate, what policies to persuade others on, etc.? I don’t know if you have followed my PPP writings in the past, but I lean HEAVILY toward a corner #2 alliance because I REALLY can’t stand the pro-censorship and pro-military industrial complex/American imperialism that resides along corner #4. Now whether you can be better classified as a “classical liberal” requires a bunch of tedious additional questions related to macroeconomics and Constitutional interpretations. Even though the “classical liberal” term has a specific definition rooted in history, I tend to look at it as synonymous nowadays with “libertarian.” Not the vague definition, mind you, of being against excessive government involvement in all aspects of our lives (because who isn’t, really?). I prefer a more tightly defined one that means someone who wants to reduce the responsibilities of the U.S. federal government back to what was carefully enumerated in the U.S. Constitution…and nothing more. Examples: are you against Glass-Steagall, in favor of Bretton Woods, against social security, in favor of a flat tax, against increasing federal debt during recessions, or in favor of union-negotiated health care plans over a socialized one? If you can answer “yes” to at least some of these questions, then you might be a classical liberal…and may God have mercy on your soul. You reside somewhere between corner #2 and corner #3.

Super Bowl 56 does seem scripted to me: Tinseltown’s team moves back. They need to win over the fickle fans. Their new stadium opens up. They make it back to the Super Bowl for the first year that their stadium hosts it. Their adversary is a young Cinderella upstart team whose quarterback is played by Macaulay Culkin. Yeah right. All of us pro football fans are living in some type of Truman Show.

Oh wow…you have completely ruined Peter Pan for me. All this time, your refusal to grow up was a facade for a refusal to confront deep-seated bigotries toward Indigenous peoples??

You do realize that you are comparing Edmunds to arguably the best ILB in the league…who is at a career production pace consistent with a first-ballot Hall of Famer, correct? Furthermore, you realize that Darius Leonard during his rookie year was the same age that Tremaine Edmunds is NOW? Furthermore, you realize that the Colts play a noticeably different defensive system with different MLB responsibilities than Leslie Frazier’s? A more appropriate statistical comparison would be Carolina’s Luke Kuechly, who happened to have had a first-ballot Hall of Fame career. For fun, let’s do a basic career statistical comparison of all three LB’s. Here are their season statistical averages (projected for a full 17-game season and rounded to the nearest whole numbers) for 10 basic statistical categories plus 1 team stat. The order is Edmunds’ followed by Kuechly’s followed by Leonard’s: Combined tackles: 129, 157, 158 Solo tackles: 82, 99, 101 Assisted tackles: 47, 58, 57 Tackles for losses: 7, 11, 9 QB hits: 4, 4, 6 Sacks: 2, 2, 4 Forced fumbles: 1, 1, 5 Fumble recoveries: 0, 1, 2 Interceptions: 1, 3, 3 Passes defended: 8, 10, 9 Team’s defensive unit ranking (in yards allowed per game): 5, 12, 13 Keep in mind here that these individual statistical averages are comparatively higher for Kuechly versus Edmunds partly because they include Kuechly’s peak athletic years during his middle 20’s. Also keep in mind that Kuechly’s numbers are comparatively lower to Leonard’s partly for the same averaging-out reason (as well as the different defensive systems in which they played). CONCLUSION: You know what? No, I’m not going to do this. Here are the stats. The haters are free to draw whatever conclusions they want. I’ve already determined for myself (which incorporates X’s and O’s analyses from people whose opinions I respect…think: Greg Cosell types) that Edmunds is a top 20 NFL LB and still has potential to be much more. Many of you probably gave up on Josh Allen when he was 23 years old, but I’m not going to do that to Tremaine. I’m more than happy to have him as a Buffalo Bill for at least 1 more year. He’ll have every opportunity to establish his true second contract market value next offseason.

I would even settle for the police officer from the Terminator 2 movie: fast, high motor, competitive drive, and quick recovery time from injuries. Best projected fit in the NFL: slot receiver.

Why is Von Miller unrealistic? We know that Brandon Beane was trying to trade for him before the Rams beat him to the deal. We know that Beane places a (borderline irrational) premium on pass rushers. We know that DL draft picks outside the top 20 can’t be expected to contribute much during their first 2 or so years. And we know that the pass rush was wildly inconsistent this season and was a major reason why the Bills aren’t still playing football games. Von Miller’s projected annual salary is $10-11 million, according to Spotrac, which is about the salary cap equivalent of cutting Jon Feliciano and AJ Klein.

Hi, Buffarukus. I’ll comment on your post by each paragraph: Paragraph 1: Law is too arcane a field to be open to the general public for democratic voting. Also, constitutional law is not math or science with objective truths, so there’s no sense in pretending that the judicial branch can ever be anything but inherently political. And if we want a diversity of opinions and life experiences in our courts, I’d consider socioeconomic background as much as I would race and gender. Paragraph 2: There’s a way around this predicament that you describe. In the case of death or early retirement, a sitting president can select that judge’s replacement, but that replacement can only serve out the remaining unused years of the predecessor’s term. So he or she doesn’t automatically get a renewed full term. Paragraph 3: For the record, I personally do NOT advocate subverting the system (court packing, ending filibusters, etc.) to gain more power. The THREAT of subversion, however, is acceptable to me if it ends up persuading all involved parties to come to the bipartisan negotiating table like adults. Also remember that the GOP is playing their own version of unethical power games by using the judicial branch to obviate the will of the clear majority, as expressed via the legislative branch. The most prominent example from last year was Texas SB 8, but I expect many more examples this decade that will be centered around the far-left’s populist economic agenda (universal health care, corporate/Wall Street regulations, etc.). There are few angels and even fewer clean hands in politics…on either side. Paragraph 4: We’ll probably need a ranked choice voting system implemented at every level of U.S. government before we are to realistically give third parties a meaningful voice.

True, but the disparity in numbers is not the real problem. PPP forum: “Liberals are all stupid, lazy, power-hungry, and morally repugnant.” Also PPP forum: “Hey, how come liberals don’t want to converse with us??” Interesting take. However, I’d drop the “intelligent liberal” versus “stupid liberal” dichotomy because it’s unproductive. If I’m interpreting your post correctly, you seem to be asking why the modern American left is so pro-establishment and wondering what happened to all the anti-establishment lefties (i.e. the lefties who are pro-labor, pro-free speech, and anti-American imperialism and who tend to prioritize these issues over social justice warrior ones)? Well as someone who happens to be personally well-connected with far-left NYC politicians, I can assure you that this anti-establishment left still exists and is fairly robust, albeit currently powerless. They formed the backbone of the 2008 Obama campaign in opposition to Hillary’s, the 2016 Sanders campaign in opposition again to Hillary’s, and the 2020 Sanders campaign in opposition to basically the rest of the Democratic Party field. You probably wouldn’t know of their existence if you only consumed corporate media like Fox and MSNBC, but you will hear from them again during the mid-term primaries and again during the 2024 primaries. The anti-establishment subset of the left has been embroiled in a 14-month-long civil war over political strategy and various policy purity litmus tests with the goal of identifying all the poseurs, but they will be ready to do battle with the Democratic Party establishment when the time is ripe! Though winner-take-all electoral systems do make strange bedfellows, unfortunately… A small aside: I really don’t like the sloppy use of the word “liberal” in this thread. Like “Marxist” and “progressive,” it’s a label that has lost most of its original meaning in the American vernacular. Please add a modifier. Thank you. There are “classical liberals” on the right, and then there are “modern liberals” that comprise the left along with the “center-leftists,” “social democrats,” and “democratic socialists.” The “modern liberals” and “center-leftists” are essentially variations of “neoliberal,” while the “social democrats” and “democratic socialists” are “progressives.” And the “democratic socialists,” of course, are the only true “Marxists” among the types. Does that make sense to everyone?? Agree? Disagree? I’m a real stickler for language precision, as you can tell… Final comment: right-wingers who live in glass establishment houses shouldn’t be throwing stones! The neocons and crony capitalists still own the GOP, despite all the sweet political nothings that every right-winger’s favorite faux populist boyfriend in the orange clown makeup has whispered in their ears during the past half-decade.

Hmmm…so recently I have been thinking very deeply about constitutional law, as I am wont to do after a difficult Bills loss. Would a constitutional amendment that specifies Supreme Court term limits and roster size be something on which everyone along the political spectrum can agree? If so, how about, say, 13 justices (one for each U.S. circuit court of appeals) for terms of, say, 26 years (chosen, say, every 2 years)? And if the consensus answer is “yes, Kay, that’s actually a very brilliant idea but that is also not entirely surprising given the progenitor of said idea,” then how would such a bipartisan idea come to fruition given the stridently partisan political climate?? Basically, many of my fellow comrades want to pack the courts. Normally I would be against such a thing, but I also don’t want five or six elderly right-wing out-of-touch individuals continuously blocking future domestic economic populist legislation that has amassed the support of ~70+% of the country. So I’m thinking of ways that our dear nation can avoid another Lochner Era crisis because I don’t think it would be good for the stability of our currently fragile democracy. A reversal of Roe v. Wade via yet another Tenth Amendment cop-out may become the dangerous catalyst for such a calamity, and it could easily happen this decade. Or am I being overly dramatic? I’m still quite upset over the Thirteen Seconds game and am having a tough time processing my emotions. Please forgive me, PPP.

And for completeness, annual GDP growth under Trump was about 2.5% before 2020. This bar graph can be a bit misleading, however, and for a different reason than the “lagging indicator” that Sherpa and Chef Jim mention. In practice, the economic policies (tax codes, labor regulations, trade agreements, etc.) of the Clinton and Obama administrations had more in common with those of Reagan, the Bushes, and Trump than they did with those of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter. So I would pay less attention to the blue/red disparity and more to the chronological one. Annualized GDP growth between WW2 and 1980 was about 4%, but only about 2.5% since neoliberalism took effect. Of course, GDP is also a very misleading singular metric if you’re trying to gauge economic health. It tells us nothing about how that growth is distributed among the population. I recommend looking into labor market mobility metrics and data such as real wage growth (i.e. NOT nominal) relative to major costs of living factors (housing, education, health care, etc.).

OMG…thank you for this… Yes, how could ANY self-respecting fan of Buffalo pro football forget any one of the 11 magical games played between our Buffalo All-Americans and their rival Akron Pros??!! In honor of the legendary 12/5/1920 meeting between Buffalo and Akron that ended in a 0-0 tie (and ultimately determined the champion of the league’s first season), I will be donating $0.00 to the charity of your choice.

The Mike and the Will are pretty much indistinguishable in Leslie Frazier’s nickel package. His 4-2-5 is essentially Buffalo’s base defense at this point, and it unfortunately puts a lot of undue stress on Edmunds and Milano during the course of a game. Both are athletic enough to handle their jobs well, but an elite offense like KC’s creates too many additional problems when Buffalo’s defensive unit is already missing Tre White and is not getting enough pass rush and containment at the edges from the DE’s. But the solution is not to get rid of Edmunds! He’s universally regarded among NFL coaches and players as no worse than among the top 20 LB’s throughout the league. With his elite athleticism and his young age (23.5 years old), he has room to grow. He’s a captain of what has been a top-3 statistical NFL defense for 3 of his 4 years in Buffalo. He’s already made 2 Pro Bowls and is a first alternate for this season. Let’s also face reality: we’re stuck with Frazier, McDermott, and therefore Edmunds for at least another season. But that’s okay! The LB’s, DT’s, and safeties on this team are perfectly fine. What is needed is another starting CB opposite a healthy Tre White, a Pro Bowl-caliber DE, and better production from Epenesa/Basham/Rousseau.

He reminds me of the "Son, I Am Disappoint" meme. This fella:

Sorry, Jpsredemption, but I am finding your dismissive attitude toward this particular form of seemingly lowbrow Buffalonian humor to be deeply rooted in misogyny. Historically speaking, marital aids have served as both an incredible symbol of female empowerment and a practical necessity for women trapped in various unhealthy relationships. Moreover, American football has traditionally been viewed as predominantly the leisure purview of men. To go even further, the act of throwing a projectile is one of aggression, and aggressive behavior is often considered to be the more acceptably “masculine” form of gender-based action. And in the long and difficult war for women’s rights in America, women of Western New York have always marched in lockstep with their sister soldiers throughout the rest of the country. So at the center of this Venn diagram intersection of male patriarchy that I have outlined, lies the act of throwing a Bildo onto the field. In a way, to NOT condone the very act of throwing a Bildo onto the field would be to invalidate the 100+ years of cumulative efforts of the women’s rights movement in Western New York, no? MY BILDO, MY CHOICE…correct? So why not support this amazing gesture of solidarity with the lovely ladies of Western New York? Please recite with me the Bildo Thrower’s Creed that all princess warriors and protectors of the Queen City follow: “This is my Bildo. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My Bildo is my best friend. It is my life. I must master throwing it as I must master my loins. Without me, my Bildo is useless. Without my Bildo, I am sexless. I must throw my Bildo far. I must throw farther than the Patriots QB who is trying to defeat us. I must hit their WR before he reaches the end zone. I will… My Bildo and I know that what counts in Patriots football games is not the number of projectiles, the noise of the stadium security officials, nor the internet notoriety we achieve. We know that it is the players we strike. We will strike… My Bildo is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a lover. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its battery accessories, its size, and its base. I will keep my Bildo clean and ready, even as I am filthy and too exhausted after work. We will become part of each other. We will… Before the Pro Football Gods of Buffalo, I swear this creed. My Bildo and I are the defenders of Snow Sparta. We are the masters of the New England Patriots. We are the saviors of our season. So be it, until victory is Buffalo’s and there is no enemy, but the AFC East division crown!” In other words: LIGHTEN UP AND ENJOY THE MANY ABSURDITIES THAT COME WITH BEING A MEMBER OF THE BEST FANBASE IN PRO SPORTS. EDIT: As an FYI, the "Bildo Thrower's Creed" is a most delightful variation of the U.S. Marine Corps "Rifleman's Creed."