And that would make perfect in the free agency era. The Colts need to use every dime towards pieces to make Luck excel so that contract is worth it. The worst thing that could happen to them is a career ending injury to Luck this early in the contract.
The best organizations are good at allocating resources year over year. Even the bad ones (like my Redskins) seem to have learned not to pay has-been or never-were players for short term gains. The people outraged about the Kaepernick issue never address that aspect of this. What team would he make sense for under existing constraints? This isn't MLB where paying players is consequence free
as long as ownership can afford it.
No, I'm making the case that his unemployment is consistent with how the league treats any player who becomes the subject of controversy for whatever reason or is considered a head case. You can be controversial, nuts, or even a criminal and be an NFL star but only if you're really good on the field or at least have value that clearly outweighs the other issues.
Kaepernick isnt a superstar talent being denied a spot on a roster because of his politics. He's at best a mid range talent, system type qb who was benched (remember he lost his job as a starter before all of this) who courted controversy. He doesnt have a contract because teams don't think his talent level is worth the headache and they're probably right.
Name a team where the wins this season would be sufficient to outweigh the controversy and potential organizational disruption (not necessarily locker room, but something like changing your offense to fit his style and where such a change would work with existing personnel).
Say Tyrod Taylor goes down for the year mid season and the Bills are hot and in the hunt. I think you could maybe see him picked up, especially if there isnt faith in the back up. What he isn't is so good he's going to turn a basement dweller into a winner right now and he's a known enough commodity no one is going to build around him long term or risk a media circus to turn a 4-12 team into a 6-10 team.
This is where scheme and market comes in. What team who runs a system similer to the 2012 49ers is in the qb market right now and in a position for a playoff berth if they can come up with better qb play than what they have? None I can think of and no one wants a controversial backup.
Tolzien is a red herring. The Colts offense is set up around Andrew Luck's style of play and their long term plan as an organization is committed to him. They aren't going to throw that away for a 1 season rental on a controversial player (I agree the controversy is dumb) in hopes of doing marginally better on what looks destined to be a losing season.
As a result, no team has been willing to take him on as a player, and he is effectively unemployed despite being better than most starting quarterbacks for most teams.
No one who actually follows the NFL thinks this. He played well enough stepping in back in 2012 but has been mediocre to awful since. His style of play also limits his market. He might work in Seattle or Buffalo but he doesn't have the arm or accuracy for the drop back schemes most teams run.
The NFL is about money, and if someone is talented enough to make it teams have shown over and over again they will employ them regardless of all manner of scandal. Unfortunately for Kaep he isn't talented enough and the market isnt really there for his style of play. If he were worth 10+ wins or a run/option heavy team needed a qb he'd have a job but the market dictates he isnt worth the controversy.
I say all this as someone who agrees that police violence in general and against minorities and the poor in particular are serious problems. I also hate the jingoism around American sports. But really if Kaepernick wants a job his priority ought to be on his game not his politics.
I think this is an important connection, namely that the politicization of everything is closely related to the commoditization of everything. Throw in the best method of facilitating marketing and commerce in the history of our species and it becomes impossible to compartmentalize.
My wife and I saw It last Friday (she's a big fan of the book, I have some fond memories of the mini-series). I'm with you on Curry v. Skarsgaard. Curry played Pennywise as a singular monster and I think that made his performance much more memorable whereas Skarsgaard played it as one particular face of a shapeshifting alien.
They're definitely cashing in on the Stranger Things nostgia wagon (which is fine by me). I thought the scene with the Leper was by far the best in the movie with the Judith in the office scene coming in a close second. Those moments really played on childhood fears (that creepy house down the steeet, the weird picture in your grandmas basement).
I will say I thought the Georgie death wouldve been much more effective if they'd used restraint. I get they wanted to announce 'this is a hard R rated movie' but its the one place where the mini-series has anything on the movie. Even if it was due to budget/medium constraints they were effective with a less is more approach.
Overall though I also enjoyed the movie (and your review).
I don't think they've collapsed entirely but they're very much a shadow of their former selves. They live on moreso in class/culture than actual ethnic or religious differences. What I dont think is that its a given that what replaces those old identity groups has to be a European style nationalist white identity, and that treating it as an inevitably plays into the hands of those out there who want it.
I think the really important distinction that you're making here between generalized white anxiety about cultural and demographic changes and people who march in the steeets in Third Reich costumes is being missed by the activist left and it's a critical error. Most intersectionalists vastly overestimate 'whiteness' as an identity. Yes it exists but its also divided into all kinds of class and wave-of-immigration distinctions. Some middle class person whose great great grandparents immigrated from Ireland or Germany in the late 19th century isnt going to necessarily see themselves as having a lot in common with a New England WASP with generational wealth. Neither will necessarily see themselves in the same boat as white out of work coal miners in Appalachia or Italians whose grandparents immigrated here and have only really been 'white' for a generation or two.
Again this isnt to say 'white' isnt an identity, but its a very loose, weak one with lots of internal divisions, and it has been in most historical contexts of this country (there are obvious exceptions like parts of the South with high black populations or even majorities). Your always interesting question of whether or not Jews are 'white' in America is emblematic of this. My fear is that the type of identity politics we are seeing, even where its got some justification, is going to strengthen white identity in a way that is dangerous, and bad for the country long term. Its a natural outgrowth of constantly saying the personal is the political.
Look at the BLM example you used. I think you can make a damn good case, even to people with racial anxieties, that something like what happened to Philando Castille is not how any citizen ought to be treated. You can also point to instances of excessive force against white people and say 'its not just about race, it could happen to you too.' However, when you have influential BLM activists writing about how 'white' people (which ones exactly?) should leave or gift their property to non-white people, or try to get their bosses fired, you're going alienate a plurality of them.
Whether or not Trump is personally racist isn't really relevant to me in this context. The movement we're talking about predates him, just as do white racial anxieties and various racist political movements. My view remains that the way to make political progress isn't lumping every fool with a MAGA hat in with Neo-nazis, its pealing away those parts of the coalition that can be based on common interest, which has been done in the past and can be again.
Well, to the extent the derision is just culture war I agree. Its hard to see criticisms from people with their own echo chambers of escalating insanity on talk radio, cable news, and online as operating in good faith or out of principle.
I can understand how that might happen for the truly wired generation. Maybe the fact that I'm just old enough to remember the world before the internet makes it easier to distinguish between it and reality. Nevertheless I see this as something that requires correction, not capitulation. Just because its understandable doesnt make it right.
I also think its telling (and no coincidence) that Klein refers to our tribal wiring. That's also probably a major contributing factor to persistent racism. These ideas and attitudes are, in my view, coming from the same place.
I actually think the case for that is even weaker. People into this sort of crap can always point to some past event perpetrated by someone actually or percieved as being on 'the other side' to justify their own violence and misconduct.
Meanwhile the case for worthwhile things like reform of our broken law enforcement and immigration policies fade into the background of shrill arguments over the legitimacy of violence against fellow citizens.
I think the problem is that it isn't at all clear whats inspiring it (this started pre-Trump so I dont buy that explanation). I'm a pretty vocal critic of the intersectionalist left but I don't think there's no merit to anything anyone of that persuasion says. There are some legitimate critiques of our society deep down in there but its buried in all kinds of cultural and class signaling wrapped up in the zeal of a religious convert.
Their view of the world, full of sinful attitudes and slights and constant oppression isnt anymore recognizable to people than the one espoused by Neo Nazis where race war is not only in progress but some sort of desirable state as long as the right group wins. For most people things just aren't that apocalyptic and acting as though they are (especially when things like de jure segregation are still in living memory) seems disconnected from reality. Even accounting for our persistent inequities, by any objective measure, it is.
The more legitimate liberal goals for improving our country are tied to that type of thinking the harder it will be for them to succeed. You may think the alt-right are buffoons but that doesnt mean youre ready to stand with people who think the moral issue of our time is forcing professors to address college students by a pronoun of his or her chosing.
Assuming my wife doesnt go into labor I'm pretty sure I'll be seeing It opening night. I've got a bit of a soft spot for the old made for tv version but I'm not feeling the excitement for this one. My wife on the other hand is a big Stephen King fan.
I try to see something scary in the theater around Halloween time every fall. Last year it was Blair Witch which I didn't think was terrible but not great either. I watched the Void on Netflix the other weekend which is definitely worth a viewing if youre a fan of the genre.
I think everything you listed makes sense, and its nice to hear that places like that exist. I'm just not sure its compatible with the modern work experience most of the time. Its possible people are missing out on opportunities without realizing it but I think the overall response is rational given the environment.
That sounds like a pretty unique situation with your company and maybe the newbies are fools not to take advantage of it. Nevertheless, as Oscar said, it can be tough to take promises like that seriously when you spend your formitive working years being reminded how expendable everyone is.
The loyalty issue is very important. Employers wanted a right to work labor force. They wanted freedom to outsource. They didn't want unions or robust protections for workers.
They got all of these things. And now they cry about no one wanting to pay dues, climb the ladder one rung at a time, and invest some place for the long term.
@mike-dwyer Maybe I'm missing this part of the argument but whats the incentive to do that? From my perspective a lot of the commonly criticized millennial attitudes arise from deliberate public policy choices related to labor and financing education.
I'm either an old Millennial or a young Gen Xer depending on who you ask. I don't recognize the lack of grit but then I went into a field where I knew the hours would be long. Everyone I know is in some form of debt slavery and trying to figure out when (if ever) their economic situation allows for kids and home ownership of some kind.
As for attitudes towards our corporate overlords I long ago realized that the only attitude that makes any sense is to be a mercenary. Anyone in corporate America who does anything else is a damn fool.
This doesn't mean there's no reason to work hard or produce quality. Good mercenaries demand higher pay and get out of debt quicker. But for the life of me I don't understand how anyone who isn't an owner cares about these places. It isnt like theres a golden watch and pension waiting for you. They definitely won't shed any tears when security escorts you out during the next wave of layoffs.
Why do I always get the feeling the right to be forgotten is going to benefit those whose past we really need to remember and not do much for the average Johann who went viral with his pants down?
That wouldn't hurt either. As others have noted I often think how glad I am to have come of age before social media really blew up. It makes me worry a lot about my son though.
All fair points and maybe it's a call for re-examining how we approach employment generally. Back when people left the office at 5 and no one had any way of knowing what Bobby in accounting or Jane in sales did after hours absent some real weird circumstances maybe it was workable. It seems to me like we've lost most of the factors that favored restraint and put all the factors that favor reactionary snap decisions on steroids.
Also, I see what you're saying with regard to right (or lack thereof) to a job but it calls into question the constitutionality of what these agencies are doing. Can they threaten to apply facially constitutional laws in arguably unconstitutional ways that result in third parties sanctioning people?
Im not saying theres a simple correct answer to that but it does bother me and it seems like it could have a real chilling effect on legitimate exercise of rights.
On “Demonstrating Against Trump by Demonstrating Against America: What could go wrong?”
And that would make perfect in the free agency era. The Colts need to use every dime towards pieces to make Luck excel so that contract is worth it. The worst thing that could happen to them is a career ending injury to Luck this early in the contract.
The best organizations are good at allocating resources year over year. Even the bad ones (like my Redskins) seem to have learned not to pay has-been or never-were players for short term gains. The people outraged about the Kaepernick issue never address that aspect of this. What team would he make sense for under existing constraints? This isn't MLB where paying players is consequence free
as long as ownership can afford it.
"
No, I'm making the case that his unemployment is consistent with how the league treats any player who becomes the subject of controversy for whatever reason or is considered a head case. You can be controversial, nuts, or even a criminal and be an NFL star but only if you're really good on the field or at least have value that clearly outweighs the other issues.
Kaepernick isnt a superstar talent being denied a spot on a roster because of his politics. He's at best a mid range talent, system type qb who was benched (remember he lost his job as a starter before all of this) who courted controversy. He doesnt have a contract because teams don't think his talent level is worth the headache and they're probably right.
"
Name a team where the wins this season would be sufficient to outweigh the controversy and potential organizational disruption (not necessarily locker room, but something like changing your offense to fit his style and where such a change would work with existing personnel).
Say Tyrod Taylor goes down for the year mid season and the Bills are hot and in the hunt. I think you could maybe see him picked up, especially if there isnt faith in the back up. What he isn't is so good he's going to turn a basement dweller into a winner right now and he's a known enough commodity no one is going to build around him long term or risk a media circus to turn a 4-12 team into a 6-10 team.
"
This is where scheme and market comes in. What team who runs a system similer to the 2012 49ers is in the qb market right now and in a position for a playoff berth if they can come up with better qb play than what they have? None I can think of and no one wants a controversial backup.
Tolzien is a red herring. The Colts offense is set up around Andrew Luck's style of play and their long term plan as an organization is committed to him. They aren't going to throw that away for a 1 season rental on a controversial player (I agree the controversy is dumb) in hopes of doing marginally better on what looks destined to be a losing season.
"
No one who actually follows the NFL thinks this. He played well enough stepping in back in 2012 but has been mediocre to awful since. His style of play also limits his market. He might work in Seattle or Buffalo but he doesn't have the arm or accuracy for the drop back schemes most teams run.
The NFL is about money, and if someone is talented enough to make it teams have shown over and over again they will employ them regardless of all manner of scandal. Unfortunately for Kaep he isn't talented enough and the market isnt really there for his style of play. If he were worth 10+ wins or a run/option heavy team needed a qb he'd have a job but the market dictates he isnt worth the controversy.
I say all this as someone who agrees that police violence in general and against minorities and the poor in particular are serious problems. I also hate the jingoism around American sports. But really if Kaepernick wants a job his priority ought to be on his game not his politics.
On “The Politics of Everything”
I think this is an important connection, namely that the politicization of everything is closely related to the commoditization of everything. Throw in the best method of facilitating marketing and commerce in the history of our species and it becomes impossible to compartmentalize.
On “The “It” Movie Review”
My wife and I saw It last Friday (she's a big fan of the book, I have some fond memories of the mini-series). I'm with you on Curry v. Skarsgaard. Curry played Pennywise as a singular monster and I think that made his performance much more memorable whereas Skarsgaard played it as one particular face of a shapeshifting alien.
They're definitely cashing in on the Stranger Things nostgia wagon (which is fine by me). I thought the scene with the Leper was by far the best in the movie with the Judith in the office scene coming in a close second. Those moments really played on childhood fears (that creepy house down the steeet, the weird picture in your grandmas basement).
I will say I thought the Georgie death wouldve been much more effective if they'd used restraint. I get they wanted to announce 'this is a hard R rated movie' but its the one place where the mini-series has anything on the movie. Even if it was due to budget/medium constraints they were effective with a less is more approach.
Overall though I also enjoyed the movie (and your review).
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2017.09.07.Th}”
I don't think they've collapsed entirely but they're very much a shadow of their former selves. They live on moreso in class/culture than actual ethnic or religious differences. What I dont think is that its a given that what replaces those old identity groups has to be a European style nationalist white identity, and that treating it as an inevitably plays into the hands of those out there who want it.
"
That is a disturbing thought indeed.
"
I think the really important distinction that you're making here between generalized white anxiety about cultural and demographic changes and people who march in the steeets in Third Reich costumes is being missed by the activist left and it's a critical error. Most intersectionalists vastly overestimate 'whiteness' as an identity. Yes it exists but its also divided into all kinds of class and wave-of-immigration distinctions. Some middle class person whose great great grandparents immigrated from Ireland or Germany in the late 19th century isnt going to necessarily see themselves as having a lot in common with a New England WASP with generational wealth. Neither will necessarily see themselves in the same boat as white out of work coal miners in Appalachia or Italians whose grandparents immigrated here and have only really been 'white' for a generation or two.
Again this isnt to say 'white' isnt an identity, but its a very loose, weak one with lots of internal divisions, and it has been in most historical contexts of this country (there are obvious exceptions like parts of the South with high black populations or even majorities). Your always interesting question of whether or not Jews are 'white' in America is emblematic of this. My fear is that the type of identity politics we are seeing, even where its got some justification, is going to strengthen white identity in a way that is dangerous, and bad for the country long term. Its a natural outgrowth of constantly saying the personal is the political.
Look at the BLM example you used. I think you can make a damn good case, even to people with racial anxieties, that something like what happened to Philando Castille is not how any citizen ought to be treated. You can also point to instances of excessive force against white people and say 'its not just about race, it could happen to you too.' However, when you have influential BLM activists writing about how 'white' people (which ones exactly?) should leave or gift their property to non-white people, or try to get their bosses fired, you're going alienate a plurality of them.
Whether or not Trump is personally racist isn't really relevant to me in this context. The movement we're talking about predates him, just as do white racial anxieties and various racist political movements. My view remains that the way to make political progress isn't lumping every fool with a MAGA hat in with Neo-nazis, its pealing away those parts of the coalition that can be based on common interest, which has been done in the past and can be again.
"
Well, to the extent the derision is just culture war I agree. Its hard to see criticisms from people with their own echo chambers of escalating insanity on talk radio, cable news, and online as operating in good faith or out of principle.
"
I can understand how that might happen for the truly wired generation. Maybe the fact that I'm just old enough to remember the world before the internet makes it easier to distinguish between it and reality. Nevertheless I see this as something that requires correction, not capitulation. Just because its understandable doesnt make it right.
I also think its telling (and no coincidence) that Klein refers to our tribal wiring. That's also probably a major contributing factor to persistent racism. These ideas and attitudes are, in my view, coming from the same place.
"
I actually think the case for that is even weaker. People into this sort of crap can always point to some past event perpetrated by someone actually or percieved as being on 'the other side' to justify their own violence and misconduct.
Meanwhile the case for worthwhile things like reform of our broken law enforcement and immigration policies fade into the background of shrill arguments over the legitimacy of violence against fellow citizens.
"
@pillsy
I think the problem is that it isn't at all clear whats inspiring it (this started pre-Trump so I dont buy that explanation). I'm a pretty vocal critic of the intersectionalist left but I don't think there's no merit to anything anyone of that persuasion says. There are some legitimate critiques of our society deep down in there but its buried in all kinds of cultural and class signaling wrapped up in the zeal of a religious convert.
Their view of the world, full of sinful attitudes and slights and constant oppression isnt anymore recognizable to people than the one espoused by Neo Nazis where race war is not only in progress but some sort of desirable state as long as the right group wins. For most people things just aren't that apocalyptic and acting as though they are (especially when things like de jure segregation are still in living memory) seems disconnected from reality. Even accounting for our persistent inequities, by any objective measure, it is.
The more legitimate liberal goals for improving our country are tied to that type of thinking the harder it will be for them to succeed. You may think the alt-right are buffoons but that doesnt mean youre ready to stand with people who think the moral issue of our time is forcing professors to address college students by a pronoun of his or her chosing.
On “Morning Ed: World {2017.09.04.M}”
Wo6- 'Seriously, why should anyone be proud to live like a dog?' is the best line I've read in quite awhile.
On “Sunday!”
Assuming my wife doesnt go into labor I'm pretty sure I'll be seeing It opening night. I've got a bit of a soft spot for the old made for tv version but I'm not feeling the excitement for this one. My wife on the other hand is a big Stephen King fan.
I try to see something scary in the theater around Halloween time every fall. Last year it was Blair Witch which I didn't think was terrible but not great either. I watched the Void on Netflix the other weekend which is definitely worth a viewing if youre a fan of the genre.
On “Millennials and Grit”
@mike-dwyer
I think everything you listed makes sense, and its nice to hear that places like that exist. I'm just not sure its compatible with the modern work experience most of the time. Its possible people are missing out on opportunities without realizing it but I think the overall response is rational given the environment.
"
That sounds like a pretty unique situation with your company and maybe the newbies are fools not to take advantage of it. Nevertheless, as Oscar said, it can be tough to take promises like that seriously when you spend your formitive working years being reminded how expendable everyone is.
"
The loyalty issue is very important. Employers wanted a right to work labor force. They wanted freedom to outsource. They didn't want unions or robust protections for workers.
They got all of these things. And now they cry about no one wanting to pay dues, climb the ladder one rung at a time, and invest some place for the long term.
@mike-dwyer Maybe I'm missing this part of the argument but whats the incentive to do that? From my perspective a lot of the commonly criticized millennial attitudes arise from deliberate public policy choices related to labor and financing education.
"
I'm either an old Millennial or a young Gen Xer depending on who you ask. I don't recognize the lack of grit but then I went into a field where I knew the hours would be long. Everyone I know is in some form of debt slavery and trying to figure out when (if ever) their economic situation allows for kids and home ownership of some kind.
As for attitudes towards our corporate overlords I long ago realized that the only attitude that makes any sense is to be a mercenary. Anyone in corporate America who does anything else is a damn fool.
This doesn't mean there's no reason to work hard or produce quality. Good mercenaries demand higher pay and get out of debt quicker. But for the life of me I don't understand how anyone who isn't an owner cares about these places. It isnt like theres a golden watch and pension waiting for you. They definitely won't shed any tears when security escorts you out during the next wave of layoffs.
On “The Men Who Can Kick You Off The Internet”
Why do I always get the feeling the right to be forgotten is going to benefit those whose past we really need to remember and not do much for the average Johann who went viral with his pants down?
"
That wouldn't hurt either. As others have noted I often think how glad I am to have come of age before social media really blew up. It makes me worry a lot about my son though.
"
All fair points and maybe it's a call for re-examining how we approach employment generally. Back when people left the office at 5 and no one had any way of knowing what Bobby in accounting or Jane in sales did after hours absent some real weird circumstances maybe it was workable. It seems to me like we've lost most of the factors that favored restraint and put all the factors that favor reactionary snap decisions on steroids.
"
Also, I see what you're saying with regard to right (or lack thereof) to a job but it calls into question the constitutionality of what these agencies are doing. Can they threaten to apply facially constitutional laws in arguably unconstitutional ways that result in third parties sanctioning people?
Im not saying theres a simple correct answer to that but it does bother me and it seems like it could have a real chilling effect on legitimate exercise of rights.
"
@nevermoor
I had not heard of that case but you habe definitely put it on my radar.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.