Morning Ed: United States {2016.03.28.T}

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

127 Responses

  1. LeeEsq says:

    1. They don’t seem to have anything you can hit your head on though and get coins and things to come out of though.

    3. I’m surprised that the Darwin awards haven’t seen new life in the age of the selfie.

    4. Declining migration is much more relaxing the erect migration.

    5. I don’t recognize some of these companies.Report

    • Kolohe in reply to LeeEsq says:

      3. They have, though the article about the rise in selfie deaths is itself clickbait.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to LeeEsq says:

      5. It appears to be an odd pair of filters — headquartered in the state, but national employment. To pick one example, DaVita Healthcare specializes in kidney care — dialysis and such, both in home and at its thousand or so clinics. It moved its headquarters from California to Denver a few years back, apparently because the CEO prefers Colorado’s outdoor recreation to California’s. Or CenturyLink — headquartered in Louisiana but with the majority of its employees in 12 western states as a result of acquiring Qwest.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Yeah, a decade ago Exxon Mobil would probably be the Virginia entry, because they had their headquarters just west of Falls Church, until they moved back to Texas.

        edit – though they’re doing ‘size’ by # of employees, so Hilton would still beat them over 2:1.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Kolohe says:

          The measure determines the victor.

          Hilton is one of my customers… their HQ is pretty small and their operations no where near as large as, say, CapitalOne in Richmond. If we’re using Employee’s and not Revenue… seems the Employee count should be totaled for that state. It benefits not Virginia that thousands are employed in other states.Report

          • Probably makes for a more boring list, though. If we’re confining ourselves to private-sector businesses, pick the largest hospital group in the state that hasn’t been absorbed by one of the national chains and you’ll be close.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Michael Cain says:

        DaVita Healthcare…moved its headquarters from California to Denver a few years back, apparently because the CEO prefers Colorado’s outdoor recreation to California’s.”

        And I’m absolutely sure that the cost of doing business in the state (not to mention the lower salaries for employees) had nothing to do with it.Report

  2. Damon says:

    Cyanide Bombs: Oh, I’d be looking for a lot of payback for this stupid ass move.

    Selfies: Sadly, they survived their stupidity.

    Whiteclay reminds me of Seattle when I walked through Pike Place Market to get to my apt., running the gauntlet of natives who drank there. Not as bad of course, but you saw the addition and ruined bodies and spirits pretty clearly.Report

    • notme in reply to Damon says:

      And folks wonder why the fed gov isn’t beloved by all.Report

      • Damon in reply to notme says:

        What I find ironic is that, growing up in eastern wash state, the population, outside the major cities, was very anti federal gov’t, except for those tasty ag subsidies. Guess it all depends upon who’s getting the money. 🙂Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Damon says:

      Here’s the big question, will the agency just offer a Mea Culpa and a fat wad of cash, or deny responsibility and require a judge to make them apologize and pay, or will they go full [lawyer] and claim it’s the kids fault for messing with federal government property?

      — Edit by BLReport

      • PD Shaw in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        Unless there is a fund for the agency to pay these types of claims, technocrats cannot pay. Their previous position in these types of cases appears to be this:

        Agency officials downplay the risk. “Although use of M-44 devices has resulted in some human exposure reports, most involved program staff and minor or short-term symptoms,” said Carol Bannerman, a Wildlife Services spokeswoman.

        “A majority of exposures to members of the public resulted from the involved individual’s disregard of warning and trespass signs or intentional tampering with the devices,” she added.


  3. notme says:

    North Hollywood school budget cuts due to high white student percentage sparks outrage

    There is nothing funnier than white liberals being upset at such things.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to notme says:

      “When your class sizes are getting larger and you’re taking resources away from students, I mean ss parents, you do want your kid to go out to college,” one parent, Rosemary Estrada, said.”

      The lone parent voice cited in the article.

      Outrage, indeed.

      ETA: I misread another quote as being attributed to the Principal: “Thankfully we’re going to keep our librarian. We’re going to keep our nurse, but we may lose a few teachers, but not as many as we once thought,” said Sheila Edmiston, one student’s parent.”

      And a woman in the video called it an “interesting situation.”Report

  4. Marchmaine says:

    The Cyanide story is horrifying; given that particulars of the article, I assume the bomb maker was ACME and the simple solution of putting a well marked warning on and around the bomb was disregarded since then the wily coyote would just read it and stay away? Or, more likely, they were afraid the coyote would attempt to re-task it to disastrous results? We’re they out of anvils and rope?

    The one thing, other than the anvil shortage, that still has me scratching my head is the absence of any bait… the article says that the bomb, er, the “M-44s are spring-activated devices that release cyanide when they are activated through upward pressure or pulling” Sure, you laugh at my reference to W. Coyote… but that’s one strange trigger mechanism for a pawed animal.Report

    • Cyanide devices like the M-44 are typically smeared with stuff that smells edible to coyotes (also feral dogs and some other predators) so that they’ll bite and tug on it. I’m surprised they don’t kill more family dogs. I recall a beagle we once had whose attitude was “Puking is no big deal, so I’ll eat anything that smells like it might be food and let my stomach sort it out.”Report

    • fillyjonk in reply to Marchmaine says:

      and frankly, I’m wondering what would be the *government’s* reaction if a *private citizen* got sick of coyotes eating, say, their backyard chickens, and so, planted some cyanide bombs.

      Perhaps I take this as an indicator that I am NOT being overzealous when I track down landowners and ask permission before going out to do fieldwork in places. Well, also, I don’t touch anything out in the field that looks super hinky, either.

      (Prior to this I mainly worried about the “friendly” local pot growers and their booby traps, but, yeah: cyanide bombs, no bueno)Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to fillyjonk says:

        Coyotes are the least of my worries for Chickens… easily fenced out with Electric and respond well to varmint munitions – if we equivocate over the use of well.

        We had one season where we lost a stupendous number of chickens in 3-different batches over about 6-weeks. Now, since they are all pastured, we always lose 10% +/- to various predation, and occasionally to catastrophic perimeter failures – but those loses almost always leave behind a decent murder scene to decode… was it dogs? racoons? weasels? skunks? They all have their signature methods of working the chicken buffet. This one year? They quite literally vanished… no feathers, no guts, no nothin’ … it was like The Leftovers. A subsequent game camera on the last batch showed a hawk and an eagle (and we think, a snake)… but nothing that could abscond with 100+ birds in a single night.

        Now I’m starting to wonder if we need to lay traps for roving scientists… maybe some tea and a net trap.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to fillyjonk says:

        Texas is one of the few states that allows ranchers to take training and then set these on their own land. Unsurprisingly, Texas leads the nation in unintentional dog deaths caused by M-44s.Report

  5. Pinky says:

    Schultz / Till – The merit of a work of art can only be determined by the race and sex of the artist? How messed up. I don’t think much of the piece, but I didn’t find anything offensive about its presentation, and the only other thing that the article complains about is the artist’s category.

    It’s ok for a painting to have color even if the only surviving photos of the scene are in black and white. The depiction of the face is violent, especially against the order of the attire. The pillow’s shape suggests a halo, and has a raw red smear which combined with the angle of the head and the perspective of the viewer makes it look like a crime scene.Report

    • notme in reply to Pinky says:

      The merit of a work of art can only be determined by the race and sex of the artist? How messed up.

      Not if you are a liberal. In their world it makes perfect sense.Report

  6. Joe Sal says:

    I wonder what kind of bullshit felonies and visits from homeland would result in digging up a M-44 and sending it back to the Ag. department?

    It’s like rule of law only vectors in one direction.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Joe Sal says:

      The guy who wrote yesterday’s technocrat piece should read this article.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Joe Sal says:

      Well, we know they get very cranky when people remove their unmarked cameras; I have no idea how cranky they’d get if you started to fiddle with their cyanide bombs… maybe very, very?

      Though the common thread I notice is that none of these devices are labeled… maybe the technocrats should invest in a communication’s director – or is that not part of their charter?Report

      • Joe Sal in reply to Marchmaine says:

        I’m still trying to find out at what point “lets put M-44 cyanide bomb within walking distance of a house” was ever a reasonable idea.

        It appears we have problems we didn’t have before.

        I mean “what kind of asshole thinks this stuff up” kind of problems.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Joe Sal says:

          The same kind of assholes who’ve poisoned wolves and coyotes for centuries.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to Joe Sal says:

          M-44s have been in use for decades. No humans have been killed by one. The vast majority of unintentional dog kills have been in three states that have pretty lax restrictions on their use on private land. Most of the places where coyotes are a problem are within walking distance of a house. Personally, I suspect that far more dogs are killed by coyotes than by M-44s. Certainly true in my state, where M-44s have been banned, but small dogs are taken regularly by coyotes. Got other suggestions for control?Report

          • Joe Sal in reply to Michael Cain says:

            We hunted coyotes as long as I could recall. My sister who is now a rancher hunts them with the same 30-06 that my father did. The tribes* pay about $20 per pelt, so poisoning them and letting them decay in a canyon somewhere doesn’t make sense.

            We have professional hunters that spend a lot of their time specializing in just coyotes.

            As far as coyotes taking domisticated dogs (or cats!), it’s somewhat common knowledge if you have a dog that will roam past the range of a rifle, it’s pretty much coyote kibble.

            *acknowledging we are having fewer tribe folks that do this sort of thing, which is another problem of sortsReport

            • aaron david in reply to Joe Sal says:

              Yeah, if you live in the country you call you animals in at night, or they are gone soon. This is second nature in these areas.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to aaron david says:

                The development I live in is right up against the Cascade wilderness. This means bears, bobcats, mountain lions, and various birds of prey come pay us a visit in the wee hours. The community Facebook group gets a pretty steady stream of people upset over the injury to or loss of a free roaming pet because they haven’t quite come to grips with the fact that we live next to the wilderness, there is no barrier to wildlife, and pets are made of meat. (they also get damn little sympathy).

                Now, the folks who have video of a bobcat clearing the back fence for a nibble on Fluffy, they get some sympathy.Report

              • fillyjonk in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                (disclaimer: I like cats and grew up in a cat-owning family)

                Frankly I think people who let their cats roam (cats destroy a lot of birds, and a lot of small rodents, though I consider that second more of a feature than a bug) aren’t permitted to get upset if a coyote eats their cat, if they live in “coyote country.”

                There are multiple free-roaming cats in my neighborhood. I’ve learned not to get v. friendly with them, not after seeing one of my “favorites” hit by a car right outside my house.

                The cats we had when I was growing up? Indoor only. One did manage to sneak out an open door but he freaked out quickly and was easily captured and taken back safely indoors.Report

              • Kimmi in reply to fillyjonk says:

                I prefer the cats that swear “death to coyotes” and generally follow through.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to fillyjonk says:

                I’ve had barn cats that would occasionally come to the house for easy food and warmth, but we never got too bonded to them.

                Last cat I had really wanted to be a free roaming Tom, but lacked the front claws and was so uncoordinated the only way he’d be able to hunt food is if he killed it by tripping over it. He’d occasionally bolt out the door, but was so obsessed with eating grass it was easy to catch him as he’d stop at the first grass patch for a quick snack.Report

            • Lyle in reply to Joe Sal says:

              In particular if the dog is older and slower. My sister who lives several miles inside the city limits in Albuqueque had a coyote come into her yard and kill her ailing dog. And since coyotes have been seen in Manhattan, no place is truly safe from them.Report

  7. notme says:

    Colin Kaepernick Is Unemployed. Is It Because of His Arm, or His Knee?

    Maybe it is both but so what? The NYT cares about this but I never heard them ask if Tim Tebow wasn’t hired b/c of his religion. Then they have to bring up Michael Sam. Sure he was a great college player but like Tebow is not a guarantee of success in the NFL.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to notme says:

      I checked outa this issue a long time ago. I wish more people would. More than any other major institution in the entire known universe, the NFL has demonstrated that it’ll put talent and profit above politics. “So, you were convicted of domestic violence and assault with a firearm? No problem. We believe in second chances…”

      The reason Kaep isn’t hired right now is because management doesn’t think he can produce on the field. Well, they don’t believe that yet, anyway. The pressure on GMs to fill rosters hasn’t ramped up to 11 yet. My guess is he gets hired before the season starts, and management will sell it by saying “we believe in second chances”.Report

      • Autolukos in reply to Stillwater says:

        The reason people find this unpersuasive is that the Rams started Case Keenum and Jared Goff (like, by choice) last season. Kaepernick is not a good NFL starter by any stretch of the imagination, but he’s better than several QBs who teams will start in week 1 and would be one of the top backups in the league.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Autolukos says:

          Jay Cutler remains unsigned as well, tho. Or has that changed?

          Also, one of the big factors against Kaep is that he’s apparently regarded as a read option type QB and not a pocket guy, and only a couple OCs run a read option. That limits his desirability.Report

          • Autolukos in reply to Stillwater says:

            Cutler is also 4 years older than Kaepernick. Both should end up on rosters, but if I’m given the choice between the two on the same contract, I’m going with the somewhat younger one.

            The style perception is definitely a hurdle, though if I were looking for a backup it would be a mark in his favor, since a better runner lets you do new things to partially compensate for your better passer going down (see what the Patriots did with Jacoby Brissett last season).Report

            • Stillwater in reply to Autolukos says:

              I think Kaep will be on a roster by the start of training camp and Cutler won’t, but not because of his age.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Stillwater says:

                The Bears are my team… I’d definitely take Cutler over Kaep for a back-up role. I have no idea if Cutler wants to be a back-up and he has piles of dollars to insulate him from tough decisions like that… but, he could definitely drive a Pro team where it needs to go better than 90% of the rest of the back-up options. You might still lose the game to some sort of Cutler miscue … but I’d rather that than losing the usual way with a back-up.

                He might even be better as an elder statesman / coach quarterback than the actual team leader quarterback you seem to need.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

                One of the great heists in all of sport was Chicago agreeing to send two first round picks, a third round pick, and Kyle Orton to the Broncos in exchange for Jay Cutler. It blew my mind at the time, and even more so in hindsight. But I was actually torn about that trade, cuz even tho I’ve become a Broncos fan I grew up in Chicago loving the black and blue Monsters of the Midway. I knew it would be a disaster for them since Cutler was more upside flashy promise (think, Dan Marino here) than game-day-results. Da Bears, unfortunately, gave up too much for another Jeff George: big arm, big ego, big mistakes.

                Personally speaking, I’m not sure which one I’d take as a backup Neither of them seem to be good in the locker room or good at game management. But I’d probably tilt toward Kaep since I think he’s coachable in a way Cutler isn’t.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

                And also, Autolukos brings up a good point about Kaep’s upside: the fact that he can run – either outside the pocket to extend the play or upfield to matriculate the ball – is probably a really big bonus in a backup lacking familiarity with the starters which results in lots of broken plays.

                I’ve just talked myself into it. Kaep is the better backup!Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Stillwater says:

                Oh yeah… Cutler never redeemed the investments made in him.

                But the way I look at it, Cutler was the first actual quarterback the Bears ever had (in my lifetime)… he was a real quarterback, not the usual gimmicks we trot out there. Now, he wasn’t a *great* quarterback, but he was a real one. So a learning experience for the franchise… hopefully they learned something.

                But purely as an insurance policy? Yeah, I’d take that.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Who was the old owner? The elder McCaskey? Ever since that guy Got Old and turned the business over to his son (son in law? can’t remember) the whole enterprise has been rolling on wobbly wheels. We’ve seen that play out in a bunch of franchises, and it’s sad to see. If not for Elway taking over the Broncos it’d’ve happened here, too.

                But you’re right about Cutler being a REAL QB. The last one was Jim (sunglasses) McMahon. And he was more flash than QB competence.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Stillwater says:

                Tangent – I think that there are too many NFL teams relative to the talent. Actually, I see two other possibilities: that teams’ management is too fixed on one particular way of approaching the game, or the rules have created a game that can be won most readily by following a narrow path. If teams are paying a fortune for Osweilerses, that indicates a problem.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Pinky says:


                As a casual fan who’s become increasingly disappointed in the NFL product, I’d go with reason 2: lack of creativity in management and coaching. Now, obviously you’ve got have good players to compete against the best teams, but all the guys who make it to the NFL are – literally! – world class athletes. They’ve all got something to exploit as an advantage over the opposition, either in physical talent or due to coaching scheme.

                One of the big problems is that the cost of losing is so high that conservatism becomes the norm. It is, as they say, a copycat league. That leads to a particularly pernicious type of retrenchment, one where coaches qualifications require that they know how to coach a very narrow range of schemes.

                There are rare exceptions: Buddy Ryan, Bill Walsh, Bill Belichick, the old DC from the Stillers, I’d even throw in Wade Philips into the mix. But creative coaching requires an open mind that NFL culture punishes with extreme prejudice.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Stillwater says:

        It is really hard to analyze signings or lack-there-of without knowing what a player’s demands/expectations are for salary and role.

        Would I rather have Kaep or Cutler? Totally depends on what their salary is and how they’d handle their likely role (backup).Report

      • El Muneco in reply to Stillwater says:

        I tend to agree with Joe Thomas. Stars, or at least starters, will get chances after year-long doping suspensions, blowing off parts of their own body, or filmed domestic abuse. Backups are seen and not heard – embarass the franchise and they’ll just shake the glove tree. As Trevoyne Boykin is likely about to find out (it’s topical!).

        Right now, Richard Sherman is the only one – possibly including Kaep himself – who thinks Kaep can start at all, much less for 20 teams.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to El Muneco says:

          Yeah, agreed. I haven’t been paying close attention but the background noise I hear is that Richard Sherman is the only one keeping the “blackballed” issue alive. If a GM in need of a QB thought Kaep could start and be successful in his franchise we wouldn’t be having this discussion, seems to me.Report

          • El Muneco in reply to Stillwater says:

            As others have mentioned, the big problem is the rising cost of mediocrity. The Osweilers and Cousinses aren’t the problem per se – it’s systematic -but they’re the leading examples. It takes almost 20M to field a starting QB, or more. It just does. And it’s pretty late in the game to risk that much on the off chance that Kaep will rediscover 2013 – and that even if he does, the rest of the NFL hasn’t caught up to his schtick.
            As a backup? Or change of pace? For 5M? Might make football sense. But what’s the upside over a more, um, traditional backup?Report

            • Stillwater in reply to El Muneco says:

              I get that. But to me it suggests that the Smart People need to figure out an offense that doesn’t rely on a Matty Ice or Drew Brees to be successful. Take the saved money and spend it on constructing a different type of team. Defense, running game, short passing game, slants, bubbles, read options… Stuff that doesn’t require the QB to be the determining factor in a team’s success.

              College coaches can do this. Why can’t the pro coaches?

              Btw, am I the only one tho thinks Eli Manning is waaay better in the 2 minute offense – where he comes to the line and calls a play that he thinks makes sense – than he is in the OC determined, white-paper offense?

              I think lots of QBs are better when they aren’t constrained by an overly tight game plan. Jake Plummer comes to mind, as one great Denver QB from days gone by. But he was shut down by the OC.Report

              • gregiank in reply to Stillwater says:

                Bigger talent differentials in college for one. In the pro’s everybody is fast and a great athlete.

                Also the pros have more time, skill and ability to adapt game plans so that even a great new game plan will stop working soon enough.Report

              • El Muneco in reply to gregiank says:

                Yep, as the Curious Case of Chip Kelly showed.

                Gimmicks get figured out. Running QBs who can’t throw. Tavon Austin and Cordarrelle Patterson who can run bubble screens but not downfield routes. Too much film study.

                The only gimmick I’ve seen that there’s no counter for is Belichik’s “Get the two most athletic TE around and run out of a base 22 package”. But that’s hard to duplicate.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to El Muneco says:

                But he’s successful even when he doesn’t have any big tight ends.

                Is it really just Brady? I have a hard time believing that, but maybe I’m wrong.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Stillwater says:

                538 wondered exactly the same thing…Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Before I read that article, I just want to point out that Belichick was with 11-5 with Matt Cassell.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Stillwater says:

                all I can say is that you have not yet even scratched the surface of their first scatter plot.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Interesting read. They had Belichick ranked 36th in terms of coaches impact on a game. He shouldn’t even be in the league!Report

              • Autolukos in reply to Stillwater says:

                The trouble is that if you try to do this and go 26-22 in your first three years, you get canned and people declare that what you were trying to do could never work.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Autolukos says:

                Exactly. As I said upthread “One of the big problems is that the cost of losing is so high that conservatism becomes the norm.” Ie., it’s safer to fail conventionally (“my philosophy is ‘run first’ even tho we don’t have the offensive line for that…”) than by trying something new.

                Personally I think the Chip Kelly model is going to gain lots more steam that it already has (even tho his record doesn’t reflect his influence on the league). Or in short: coach the players up and then let them play. Jake Plummer would be a Hall of Famer if Shanahan coulda surrendered his grip on Control and allowed him to play to his strengths.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Stillwater says:

                I talked about this elsewhere and the problem with a combination of a “copy cat” league and coaches being stubborn. I think Belicheck’s greatest strength (besides cheating) is his ability to adapt. He’s had seasons where his team was more of a defensive juggernaut and seasons were they were an offensive juggernaut. He’s coached balanced and imbalanced teams. He’s had pass-first offenses and run-first offenses. Hell, he even switches it up midseason, rubbing Blount down the Colts’ throats one game and barely using him the next. People often look at Belicheck’s reclamation projects and assume he has some magic touch that turns scrubs into stars. The reality is that he identifies players’ best skills and situations and maximizes for that. You’ll see a guy make standout plays or have standout games but with the exception of his truly talented players, most of them don’t have truly standout seasons. You’ll see a guy and say, “Holy crap! That guy has 3 sacks/touchdowns today. He’s awesome!” And then you’ll see he’s got like 6 total for the season. Which doesn’t mean he sucks but it means that if Belicheck can create a situation wherein that guy can excel, he’s going to do it. And if he can only do that once a season, he’ll do it that one time a season before putting that guy back under glass unless/until he can do it again.

                He isn’t without his weaknesses but his particular strengths are both exceptional AND very well aligned to exploit the current coaching and team building culture in the league.Report

    • Jesse in reply to notme says:

      Um, because Tebow never had any actual success. He was the QB on the team that also happened to have an insane defense. OTOH, Kapernick at worst could at least have a chance to be a backup level QB for a variety of teams.Report

      • notme in reply to Jesse says:

        Um, because Tebow never had any actual success.

        By what standards do you make that claim?Report

        • Stillwater in reply to notme says:

          His career QBR is 42.8, which would have ranked him outside the top thirty QBs last year. Behind Blake Bortles (gah!) and Case Keenum (yikes!).

          I live in the Denver area. I know good quarterbacks. Some of my favorite players are good quarterbacks. And Tim Tebow is not a good quarterback.Report

            • Stillwater in reply to Pinky says:

              I think you’re referring to his passer rating. QBR is a different metric. (Not that I think we should go to the metric system!)Report

              • Pinky in reply to Stillwater says:

                It looks like Tebow had a QBR of 66.3 in 2010, 42.8 in 2011, and 27.5 in 2012. He has had success, in terms of his w/l record, but there’s no doubt that he’s not an NFL-type quarterback. Whoever figures out how to use college-type quarterbacks in the NFL is going to dominate the league. (At least for a few seasons, until everyone else catches on.)

                ETA – I was just reading about the calculation of quarterback stats. I’d forgotten how inexplicable it all is.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Stillwater says:

            And anyway, how would someone in the Denver area know good quarterbacks?Report

          • notme in reply to Stillwater says:

            Whether Tebow is a good QB is a wholly different question than Jesse’s statement that “Tebow never had any actual success.”Report

            • Stillwater in reply to notme says:

              Nuance matters. Tebow was “successful” – over an 8 game stretch – because he had flexible coaches who could change game-plans on the fly, had a great defense, and had all-pro receivers he was throwing the ball to (usually inaccurately). His QBR sucks.Report

              • Richard Hershberger in reply to Stillwater says:

                And, going back another round or two in the discussion, to the question of “if Tim Tebow wasn’t hired b/c of his religion”, even the indirect suggestion is risible, even without knowing that 75% of NFL starting quarterbacks are Evangelical Christians That anyone can suggest that his religion is why Tebow doesn’t have a job as an NFL quarterback speaks volumes about White American Evangelical Christianity’s pathetic clinging to its persecution complex.Report

              • notme in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

                What is risible is your misreading of what I said. Let me clarify it for you. The NYT is more than happy to opine that Kap isn’t employed bc he took a knee (which i find to be ridiculous) but IMHO would never opine that Tebow isn’t employed bc of his religiosity. (which i also find to be a ridiculous proposition).Report

            • Jesse in reply to notme says:

              Tebow was about as or less central to the Denver Bronco’s success those seasons as the equipment manager was. Short of a few bad rookies and a few near retired players, Denver would’ve been better off with literally any QB in the league that year.

              They got as far as they did in spite of Tebow.Report

  8. Stillwater says:

    Woah. Embattled DNC Asks All Staffers For Resignation Letters

    Lots of good things here, but I’ll only take him seriously if everyone goes.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

      Huh. Maybe Trump won’t win a fourth term…Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

        Wait. I thought your shtick was that the Democrats need to change course and all that 1000 seats lost!!! stuff. Why you so pissy about getting what you wanted?Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

          Pardon me, I’ll rephrase.

          Huh. The DNC has admitted that there’s a problem that requires a massive shakeup to address.

          Maybe they won’t lose the next few elections.

          (Is that better?)Report

          • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

            I’m not sure when you began to think you’re the only person who realizes the Dems are getting crushed at the state level and that the DNC needs revision, Jaybird, but I’m sure they’re glad to have you on board either way.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

              I was under the impression that you and I were the only people who realized that the Dems were getting crushed at the state level. (As opposed to the more comforting narratives revolving around Gerrymandering and smart people moving to Real Cities, don’t you know.)

              I had originally thought about writing something about how the DNC shouldn’t have fired anybody, they didn’t do anything wrong, the only problem was Hillary couldn’t campaign in Wisconsin because she had the flu and you can’t deal with problems like that at the party level, etc… but decided to go with “I’ll merely agree with the point that Stillwater made” instead.Report

              • gregiank in reply to Jaybird says:

                Ummm no, people have noticed the D’s losing at the state level for years. Actual years, not just Internet years. It ain’t news.

                Is there a debate that gerrymandering hasn’t had an effect? I think it’s more just how much of any effect. Didn’t you say it was only 20% of the state losses, which is not insignificant.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to gregiank says:

                The debate isn’t whether gerrymandering has had an effect.

                The debate is whether gerrymandering is being used as a comforting narrative to avoid discussing massive systemic mistakes.Report

              • gregiank in reply to Jaybird says:

                Or of course both is the answer. Both occurred and are problems.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                massive systemic mistakes.

                What mistake, tho? I think that’s the issue which you haven’t identified for all your talk that mistakes were made.

                In my own case, I’ve mentioned that Dem support of NAFTA sorta signaled the end of the very clearly defined post-WWs Democratic party, and since then they’ve been searching for a core economic identity. They really don’t have one. Instead the focus has been on cobbling together a coalition built on “moral” issues while the GOP has been focusing on individual freedom and local control type stuff.

                I’m not at all sure what direction they go in as a party, or even if they change course at all. If Trump and the GOP continue on the current trajectory the Dems don’t need to do a damn thing for the tides to turn in their favor, seems to me.

                Hell, even the Kansas GOP Senate just voted for Obamacare Medicaid expansion.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                I would have gone even smaller:

                “Abandoning Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy”Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                Now you’re just back to messaging and competing in districts to get the message out. Which, I mean, surely we both (all, really) agree is tactically the right thing to do irrespective of whether the Dems change ideological course or not.

                But that gets to what you’ve been debating with greg and Morat over the last few months: gerrymandering. Part of the reason Dems abandoned certain districts and whole regions in fact is that the likelihood of results didn’t justify the cost. Which is something people can legitimately disagree about, seems to me. Even tho you and I (at least) don’t.

                Abandoning that strategy – precisely when GOP efforts at the local level (their own 50 state strategy, so to speak, tho even more finegrained) were ramping up and yielding tremendous results – was stoopidstoopidstoopid.

                But! That’s the DNC for ya.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                I don’t know what the DNC ought to do. Like, embrace free trade, embrace “fair trade”, embrace tariffs, or what. I don’t know if they should be all “abortion on demand for any reason” or if they should express reservations about some forms of abortion. I think they should run with legalizing pot, but I *WOULD* think that.

                The main thing I want to hammer out with Greg and Morat over those months was how to measure whether the democrats were screwing up or not.

                “They’ve lost 1000 seats!” “But what about gerrymandering!”

                And back and forth from there. “I think that the Democrats made some serious mistakes!” “Everybody makes mistakes!” and so on.

                I just wanted to hammer out how we might be able to say “okay, the Democrats are no longer massively screwing up” but we couldn’t even hammer out that the Democrats massively screwed up in the first place. “Clinton got more votes!”, and so on.

                Which makes the DNC’s move to ask everybody (*EVERYBODY*) to resign a good sign because, I’m sure we all remember from The Program, the First Step is to admit that you have a problem.

                If we couldn’t even admit that we had a problem, that strikes me as a recipe to not change.

                But that change seems to indicate that somebody, somewhere, has come out and said “okay. We have a problem. We need to change.”

                I see that as a good sign.

                Now, next, I suppose I’d like to see a sign that they know that they ought to be measuring what success would look like and how they’re going to define it and how they’re going to hammer out how it’s going to be measured.

                But, hey, it’s early yet. I’m just pleased that they seem to have admitted that they have a problem. Waiting hopefully to see where they go from there.Report

              • gregiank in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’ll tell you in 2018 how well the D’s are doing. Before then polling can give us some strong hints. That election in Georgia will be an interesting data point that is for sure. It will take a few months to really see if the D’s are going to seriously tweak/change some policies.

                It will be good for the D’s if they keep fighting against gerrymandering and voter suppression while still admitting they have made serious errors. If they aren’t fighting against those things they should just pack up their shop.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to gregiank says:

                If gerrymandering is responsible for a mere 200 of those 1000 seats (and regression to the mean responsible for another 200), then we only have to worry about 600 seats that are seriously contestable.

                And 600 seats should be a lot easier to catch up on, if you ask me. Why, it seems likely to me that 75 seats should be able to be won through nothing more than regression to the mean!

                Which is probably where I’d draw my line on the whole “not doing very well” vs. “haven’t learned a goddamn thing” would be.

                I don’t know where I’d draw the line between “not doing very well” and “okay, they’re doing well”. 150, maybe? 25% of those 600 seats?

                And more than 150 is “holy crap! They’re doing very well indeed!”

                (And if 150 seems a little pie in the sky-ish, we’re back to the whole issue of “Republicans won 600 seats that Democrats used to hold over the last 4 elections from 2010-2016” thing.)Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

            I got you the first time… @stillwater has been overly cranky with you lately. We should send him a bottle of wine… meta wine.Report

          • Kimmi in reply to Jaybird says:

            The DNC read my survey!
            (literally, it’s on the table in some of the latest pics).
            … they may have put it in the “cranky” pile (not the crank pile),
            but i think they just thought I was hardcore Bernie.

            [I let my husband fill it out. He was creative. As in, yes, “I can distinguish my survey from everyone else’s” creative.]Report

    • Kolohe in reply to Stillwater says:

      Someone on twitter (I can’t remember who, but it’s one of the accounts I trust) said this is SOP for a new chair.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Kolohe says:

        The article says that requiring some resignations is SOP, but requiring everyone’s resignation is new. And unprecedented! Change you can believe in. (??)

        My guess, what with Dems being Dems and all, is that lots of key people – TOP people – will get rehired.Report

        • Kimmi in reply to Stillwater says:

          I’m gonna contra on this. I think they’ll see about finding new blood. No Brazile, nothing remotely clinton as far as possible.

          (Ya Did notice that Obama rolled in with new people, from Ax on down?)Report

      • Kimmi in reply to Kolohe says:

        oh, HELL no! Asking the entire DNC to resign is fucking unprecedented.Report

    • Kimmi in reply to Stillwater says:

      Likely they all will. ain’t nobody there who wasn’t a clinton flunkie, and the clintons are gone gone gone.

      (Yes, the people I knew there were clinton flunkies. duh.)

      The dnc actually read my survey (people never read surveys!).Report