ComradeKayAdams

My ranking of the 9 other playoff-caliber AFC teams, in descending order of matchup favorability with our beloved Bills: 1. Raiders 2. Dolphins 3. Patriots 4. Colts 5. Browns 6. Titans 7. Ravens 8. Steelers 9. Chiefs Your thoughts?? Mine are that I’m not entirely sure what to make of the Browns and Ravens right now, I don’t think the top 3 in my ranking make the playoffs, and a healthy Buffalo Bills team can beat anyone in the league not named the Chiefs.

It looks like we can at least agree that slavery reparations and universal health care coverage for illegal immigrants are generally bad ideas. However, you seem to be intimating that these issues are the exclusive domain of scary socialists and not that of moderate Democrats. The reality is that none of the Democratic Party presidential candidates bothered to separate themselves from these ideas during the summer 2019 debates. Biden and Harris have the same official stance as Sanders does on slavery reparations: they only go so far as to support funding for studies on the idea. Also, both Biden and Harris support an expansion of the ACA to allow undocumented immigrants to buy into the system with the public option. We will mostly disagree on the subject of free college and student loan forgiveness, but the details and the nuances matter a great deal. I’d rather discuss these at a later time. This is an issue that lends itself well to political compromise. All fracking needs to be banned. Sorry. Please read (in scientific journals or related sources, preferably) about the environmental effects and about the science of methane emissions. My only concession is that of course it can’t realistically happen immediately, so a timeline for a gradual reduction within a decade or two needs to be articulated. See my response in the “California (again)” thread on fracking and on energy independence (page 94). Trump was a formidable political opponent before the pandemic struck. I seriously doubt Biden or any of the lame moderate Democrats could have beaten him without the help of COVID-19. Just my opinion: Tulsi was the strongest candidate for the general election and Bernie was a close second, on the (ok fine…admittedly unrealistic) condition that the mainstream media would have done their jobs and played a neutral role covering their campaigns…instead of actively undermining it on the DNC’s directives. Yes, between the DNC’s pre-Super Tuesday scheming and Joe Biden’s potential Cabinet appointments (Rahm Emanuel?! NEERA TANDEN?!?!), it is quite apparent that the Democratic Party leaders have given the progressives and socialists the middle finger. Are my fellow comrades paying attention?! I believe enough are, to the point that the Democratic Party now has a big problem on their hands and will rue the day that they extended that centrist finger to us in 2020. The more politically savvy progressives among us knew all along that Biden’s unity task forces were a complete farce. The Obama, Clyburn, Hillary, Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer types were never interested in mending relationships with us and in seeking genuine compromise for the good of the party and country. They should have always been looked at as our political enemies to be distrusted as much as the Republicans. This is fine with me! I CRAVE political drama. I’ve been looking forward to Act 2 of this magnificent play since March: Act 1: remove the Great Orange Menace…done! Act 2: intra-party warfare with centrist wing…beginning now but with no definitive end in sight. Whether progressives take over the Democratic Party or destroy it externally with third party pressure and what not, the focus needs to remain on putting neoliberalism six feet into the ground. I’m willing to tolerate Election Day defeats (Pyrrhic victories?) to the Republicans in 2022 and 2024 in order to achieve this goal. Why? Because from my political vantage point, not much separates moderate Dems and non-Trump Reps anyway. I’ve made my peace long ago with handing Biden and Harris their 4-year shovels to dig their own BLEEPING graves. Act 3: inter-party warfare with the economic libertarian Republicans…could be as early as November 2024 if progressives (AOC?) can successfully primary the heck out of Kamala. November 2028 is more realistic. I like the progressives’ electoral chances against conservatives later this decade, given the country’s demographic trends as well as the right wing’s spiraling downward trajectory into the miasma of conspiracy theories, pathological skepticism of experts and authority figures, myopic pursuits of selfishness, and outright hostility toward empathic dispositions. Act 4: celebrate our new European-style social democratic government with a totally AWESOME party. The details of Act 2 and Act 3 are open to intense debate. I already have the minutiae of Act 4 figured out inside my head, right on down to the outfit I intend to wear. PPP Community: “Oh, neat! Can you tell us more about your outfit plans, Kay?” Me: “Sure! I’m glad someone asked. So it will be a small variation of my Halloween costume this year, where I went as a more fashionable and secular version of Stephen King’s Carrie, but with all the accompanying social awkwardness and latent rage. The final look will include a red Herve Leger long sleeve off-shoulder bandage dress, Nemanti knee-highs, a red choker, ostentatious chandelier earrings, a classic film noir Veronica Lake peek-a-boo hair style with red highlights, my usual Audrey Hepburn doe-eyed makeup routine with pale foundation/red blush/cherry red lipstick, and lots of blood all over.” PPP Community: “Woah!!! Ms. Adamski! What a fun look! But what’s with you and the color red? Is that because you’re such a silly little Soviet-style commie? And by that time, shouldn’t you have washed off all the fake blood from the Halloween party?” Me: “Fake…yes…fake blood. Red is my color of choice because it is the color of revenge. It symbolizes the neoliberal blood that must be spilled this decade, trickling down into the streets, from Wall Street to Main Street, in much the same direction that their economic theory of lies promised the wealth would run. We will be drinking from the finest Charles Shaw bottles our canvassing volunteers can amass, though that red wine won’t be red wine. And who knows if any of the fallen’s names will include an actual Charles or a Shaw.” PPP Community: “WOW. Intense response, Kay. Very Glenn Close-like from Fatal Attraction, sans the animal abuse. You really need to move on from the results of the 2016+2020 Democratic primaries.” Me: “No.”

I do!!! OMG I have so many questions for him. He cleaned up a bit for the second Fox News interview, so I’d like to think he has some basic level of sartorial self-awareness. Here are just a few questions: 1. When I say “business professional,” what are the first clothing items that come to mind? Is a Josh Allen jersey one of them? 2. What does “business casual” mean to you? Would a Trent Murphy jersey be included in this category? 3. Were you wearing Bills Zubaz pants below for the Lou Dobbs interview? If so, were they washed beforehand? Do they contain a variety of mystery stains? If yes, what steps did you take to try and remove them? 4. When I say “put on a sports jacket,” can you describe in detail what you reach for? 5. What is your Two Bills Drive user name???

Excellent work, JGMcD2!!! I am a stats nerd as well, so we are kindred spirits. PFR is such an amazing website and one of my top three football sources, right up there with the NFL’s home page and this place, of course. If you’re looking for a single metric for football player evaluation, PFR’s Career AV is as good as any that I’ve seen out there so far. We agree that McDermott and Beane are one entity (McDeane!) united in football philosophy, so I’m comfortable considering Buffalo’s 2017 draft to be Beane’s even though it was technically Whaley’s. Supposedly McDermott was consulting with Beane and with some of the Carolina scouts leading up to the 2017 draft weekend? I have no idea if that’s true or just a bad internet rumor. That seems somewhat unethical and treasonous, actually… I’m sorry that I don’t have any novel quantitative analysis insight for you at the moment. When it comes to evaluating front office abilities using the Career AV metric, I believe that draft picks should be normalized by selection order and free agents should be normalized by cap space used. Trade evaluation should maybe incorporate the NFL’s historical Career AV average at the particular draft number of any draft pick that is involved in the trade. As everyone knows, NFL general managers are ultimately judged by regular season records and by playoff achievements. So now take a look at the current top 8 NFL teams by record: Pittsburgh, KC, New Orleans, Green Bay, Seattle, Tennessee, Cleveland, and Buffalo. The first 5 are led by QB’s that are likely Hall of Famers and who have already won Super Bowls. The Titans are getting high-quality QB play and are led on offense by a future Hall of Fame RB. Cleveland is somewhat of an anomaly because they are 1-3 against teams with a record above 4-7. Allen is playing at an elite level. The Bucs and Colts are not too far behind in the standings, either, with their Hall of Fame-caliber QB’s. So the QB position appears to be unusually important (duh…). That is why I’d consider placing an extra numerical weighting factor on the QB position when doing any sort of quantitative front office evaluation. Maybe reward those who drafted and groomed their own elite QB, as opposed to the front office regimes that inherited their guy? My final comment is for any avid Beane skeptics. Remember the common refrain that it takes three full seasons to make a fair evaluation of an NFL draft. Mr. Beane has placed a special emphasis on the defensive front 7 since 2018, using 4 of his 9 top-100 picks on them (Edmunds, Phillips, Oliver, Epenesa). Injuries, many new faces on Frazier’s D, and COVID-19 disturbances may have slowed their development trajectories quite a bit this year, unfortunately, but look for their Career AV stock to begin rising quickly! My expectation is that McDeane will be judged very favorably in time, using whichever metric you prefer: PFR AV, wins, championships, etc.

“Notice how we’re all the same height lying down, Ms. Adams?”

I’m guessing the opening night roster will be: G1: Ullmark G2: Hutton D1: Dahlin - Jokiharju D2: McCabe - Ristolainen D3: Miller - Montour F1: Hall - Eichel - Reinhart F2: Skinner - Staal - Olofsson F3: Girgensons - Eakin - Okposo F4: Mittelstadt - Cozens - Thompson This is playoff-caliber! Good things seem to happen whenever an ADAMS is put in charge. It’s time to break the longest NHL postseason drought (9 seasons) and third-longest playoff series win drought (13 seasons, behind the Panthers and Maple Leafs). As for when the new season begins, most likely it will have to be pushed back beyond the target January 1 date because of the expected holiday season Covid-19 flare-ups. I don’t know if you guys follow our Buffalo Bandits as well, but the National Lacrosse League cancelled their season back in mid-March and isn’t even bothering with the next one until mid-April (their usual start date is around early December)! Hopefully the new NHL season won’t have to be pushed back quite that far…

I love it! You’re talking about the 2-0 personnel package, which I believe puts Buffalo’s most talented 11 players on the field: QB Allen RB Singletary RB Moss LT Dawkins LG Ford C Morse RG Feliciano RT Williams WR Diggs WR Brown (replace with Davis inside red zone?) WR Beasley (alternate with McKenzie on occasion?) Singletary and Moss have shown to be very capable receivers out of the backfield. The question is how good is their pass protection? Is it somewhat close enough to a Lee Smith or to an H-back like Gilliam? Can Moss run block in the same ballpark as a FB like DiMarco? If so, the 2-0 personnel has potential to be very dangerous and unpredictable for opposing defenses. Buffalo’s rushing offense is currently ranked around #25. Daboll’s creativity alone could bump them up to around #10 for the second half of the year, which will be good enough to make a serious Super Bowl run through the winter weather. I feel the same way about the run game on offense as I do about the run game on defense: the players needed to get the job done are already on the roster.** Injuries and Covid-19 disruptions may have hampered their progress, but the talent is there. The coaches just need to be bolder and more creative, while the players need to focus better on the details during practice and film review. ** - an elite TE, pass-rushing DE, and big nickel safety would be nice, though!

I think that was Rob Ryan’s excuse. Multiple unfastened rib protectors. Yeah right, Rob. I hope so too, but everyone should be eating those! How I would describe either quinoa or kale: versatile, flavorful, healthy, MAGICAL. As a matter of fact, my own Thanksgiving meal yesterday included a dish with both of these stuffed into sweet potatoes! Needless to say, it was a huge success.

My Lord...and here I was worried that my Bills dynasty thread would be a real snoozer...can't wait for the bye weekend to be over... I'm voting for Corey Bojorquez solely because of that 12-yard punt. AMAZING.

That’s a Vikings video, of course. I suspect that you would get a very different response within both the Bills’ close-knit locker room as well as within the WNY community. As an example, I have two older brothers who are also big Bills fans (and may even be TBD members reading this lol…as well as my Dad…AWKWARD). I know that they would be proud and honored to have me date any one of the players on the team. Even Trent Murphy. Why? Because we are all “One” Buffalo, not “Many Selfish Individuals Who Don’t Respect or Care for Each Other and Don’t Understand the Meaning of Sacrifice for the Greater Good” Buffalo. As a loyal upstate NYer, I know that it is my civic duty to make sure the valiant warriors that proudly represent our homeland are in the right frame of mind to win the big game. If I must be the designated slump buster that ensures the 10-catch 120-yard 2-TD game for Stefon Diggs against Miami (which, in turn, helps secure the FIRST AFC East division title in my entire BLEEPING lifetime), then SO BE IT. If me going out with Diggs burns bridges with true soulmate and local Erie County restraining order initiator, Cole Beasley, then SO BE IT. If I’m forced to endure all the continuous holding and grabbing during an awkward movie date with Brian Winters, then SO BE IT. If I must deal with Del’Shawn Phillips cancelling on me, then setting up another date, then cancelling again, then setting up one more time, then cancelling yet again and ghosting me for good, then SO BE IT. If this means a blind date turns out to be a jaunt to Applebee’s on a $25 gift certificate practice squad budget with potential blood relative (ew!), Trey Adams, then you know what? SO BE IT. I have like 50+ more of these bad jokes, but I think you get the point. Remember our motto: ONE Buffalo, which is twice as unifying as TWIN Cities Minnesota. The Queen City compels it to be so.

That could have been a lighthearted reference to her infamous former relationship with 5’11” 185 lb Danny Amendola (small by pro football standards). The real Kay Adams appears to be advocating for sensible sexual dimorphism between partners. RealKayAdams finds that to be quite silly and recommends prioritizing personality traits for optimal compatibility. The #1 quality that RealKayAdams looks for is the true measure of a man: how much is he willing to fight for those that cannot fight for themselves? Will he remain loyal to his vegan principles, for example, under the most trying circumstances? Will he refuse that Anchor Bar chicken wing from his immature WNY friends despite all the inevitable mockery and lame “soy boy” jokes he knows he will have to endure? But to answer your meme question: no, you have no chance. And since this is a serious football message board and not a dating advice forum, I shall end with a related football question: why is it that so many slot WR’s are so (relatively) small? Is it because the position prioritizes elite agility, and smaller athletes will tend to have this special skill due to laws of human anatomy and physiology??

True, but the Bills badly need the practice of playing in the national limelight. At some point very soon (like…this year!), the expectation needs to be winning playoff games. I don’t want Sean McDermott to be thought of as just another Marvin Lewis. At the moment, there are 13 NFL head coaches who were hired in 2017 or earlier by their current team. 7 of them have already won Super Bowls. 3 of them are on their way out very soon (Marrone, Lynn, Zimmer). McVay and Shanahan were hired the same year as Coach McDermott and have already made it to a Super Bowl. And yes, we’re all very grateful that the Drought Era (2000-2016) is no more. But is it, really? Check out these other droughts: Consecutive seasons without a division title: 24 (behind only Cleveland and Detroit). Consecutive seasons without a playoff victory: 24 (behind only Cleveland, Detroit, and Cincy). Consecutive seasons without a final 4 appearance: 26 (behind only Cleveland, Detroit, Cincy, Washington, and Miami). Look at the company we keep…something really awful is in the Lake Erie waters, by the way…

I was just talking about Cole and the Buffalo WR’s with my Dad over the weekend. My Dad has been a devout Bills fan since the Chuck Knox years. We agreed that Diggs-Brown-Beasley is the best Buffalo WR trio since Moulds-Price-(Josh) Reed. Diggs, the “X” guy with the perfect routes and hands, is on pace for the best statistical WR season in franchise history. Then you have the speedy “Z” guy in Brown with a career performance last year as a #1 and who completely changes the dynamics of this year’s offense when healthy. And then of course is our beloved Cole “Measley” Beasley (as Skip “Pay Less” Bayless referred to him in Dallas), an insanely clutch and fearless and ruggedly handsome over-the-middle “Y” slot guy. Ok, so my Dad then proceeded to ratchet up the conversation a bit. What about their potential for the best Buffalo trio ever, above (Andre) Reed-Lofton-Beebe? Or best NFL trio ever, ahead of Washington’s Posse (Monk-Clark-Sanders)? Or the best quartet ever, ahead of the Run-and-Shoot Fab 4 (Jeffiries-Hill-Givins-Duncan) of the old Houston Oilers days…if you add Gabriel Davis for our Bills? For those of you who have followed the NFL since the 80’s and maybe saw these players live: your thoughts? Is my Dad on to something here? Or should I warn my brothers of his dormant alcoholism flaring up again? Oh believe me, Cole gets plenty of looks! Yes, that was an intentionally uncomfortable double entendre. But there are only so many pass attempts that Josh Allen can and should make per game. Daboll needs to work in the running game more as the weather gets worse going into December and January. And I would argue that an optimal Daboll offense is one where the pass targets are spread a bit more evenly from Diggs and Beasley toward Brown and Davis. I’d also like to see more exotic and RB-friendly/TE-friendly personnel packages by the time we start playing Pittsburgh, New England, and Miami. Keep our enemies guessing! Cole is the perfect age (31), just like he has the perfect height (5’8”), weight (175 lb), eyes (blue), and personality (ultimate competitor and beloved teammate). You can still find very productive slot WR’s into their mid-30’s, right? Welker? Edelman? Ok…maybe start looking for a new one in the draft, but let’s please keep Cole as one of those experienced locker room vets for at least a few more seasons! Leave Cole’s hair as is. Even the Bible warns us of the dangers of messing with good hair (see: something about Samson, Old Testament, Book of Judges, Ch 13-16). EDIT: Biblical correction.

<<< RealKayAdams fidgets with her red grading pen, adjusts her nerdy reading glasses, sternly gazes at her laptop screen. >>> We are 8.5 days past Election Night. It’s time to grade our predictions! I’ll do mine: President: 50 out of 53 (assumptions: Arizona and Georgia hold for Biden). Not bad, Kay! Not bad at all. I was wrong in both Arizona and Georgia by about 0.3% (<15k votes) each. I apparently don’t follow Omaha politics closely enough. Grade: A. Senate: 30 out of 33 (excluding Georgia). The Tillis race in NC was a slight surprise to me. I badly underestimated Ernst in Iowa and Collins in Maine. The fate of the world depends on the 2 Georgia runoff elections in January, and I still like my original choices here of Perdue winning and Loeffler losing. My bold prediction of the Dems taking back control of the Senate doesn’t look like it will come to fruition, but there were just too many expected close Senate races this year…I shouldn’t be so hard on myself. Grade: B-. House: I predicted the Dems to gain a dozen seats, but so far it looks like they will instead lose about half of that. We’re talking about 435 individual battles, so there is a fair amount of uncertainty here and I only closely follow the big Congressional names plus NYC tri-state area races. Hey, at least I correctly predicted the party that will have majority control. Grade: C. Governors: 11 out of 11. The electoral prediction equivalent of spelling one’s own name correctly at the beginning of a test. Grade: A+. Overall 2020 Election Day grade: B. There was a red wave competing with a blue one on November 3. For the executive branch, I (more or less) correctly predicted the wave crests relative to the polls. I did so mainly with a combination of the “shy Trump voter” polling theory and the expected enthusiasm gap between Biden’s voter base and Trump’s base. For the legislative branch, however, it looks like I went a bit in the opposite direction and placed too much trust in the polls. The “shy Trump voter” effect appears to have followed the Reps down ballot somewhat and did not distinguish between government branches as I thought it would have done. Perhaps I also let some of my own personal judgments of candidate quality (namely, Ernst and Collins) slip in and cloud my perception of what their constituents think? Oh well. Live and learn. Brief takeaways from this whole ordeal: 1. Polls are difficult to trust when you have such a polarizing non-traditional candidate at the top of the ticket like Donald Trump. Compare average poll accuracy between the 2018 midterm and both the 2016 and (especially) the 2020 elections. Do I owe Trafalgar and Rasmussen apologies?? 2. “It’s the economy, stupid.” That’s a phrase I’ve heard many times before, and it’s one that I believe best summarizes American electoral politics. Even with a once-per-century pandemic where polling data indicated that a large majority of Americans cared most about the health crisis issue and believed the challenger to be more capable of managing it, the incumbent with a slight polling edge on economic issues greatly overperformed and nearly pulled off a bigger upset than in 2016. Was economic anxiety the real determinant of the discrepancy between polls and results? I don’t know, but I’m raising it as a possibility. 3. Electoral demographics are shifting in the Sun Belt and in the Rust Belt as I type. A superficial post-election analysis might conclude that Trump’s legacy and the aging GOP voter base are dooming the party. A deeper analysis might indicate major Democratic Party vulnerabilities with Latinos (primarily over economic issues) and with working class whites (primarily over cultural issues) that the GOP can potentially exploit. 4. Election integrity should be a bipartisan issue. Sensible protections against voter fraud and voter suppression in 2022+ must be implemented ASAP so to not add fuel to future conspiracy theory fires. I’ll throw in proposals for an Election Day national holiday and for ranked choice voting if we want to get serious about free and fair elections, although I think we all know why those two ideas won’t be pushed (answer: status quo maintenance for the one-party corporate oligarchical establishment). 5. Corporate mainstream media is corrupt and social media is corrupting. We are all animals on a British farm circa 1984. Is there any doubt now? Does anyone on either political side disagree? 6. Accompanying the continued erosion of public trust in institutions of knowledge and expertise is a rapidly expanding communication divide between the two political sides. It’s one thing to distrust people on the other side, but it’s quite another to completely cut off contact with friends/family/news sources whose views may differ from yours! I find these societal developments to be very dangerous and troubling indeed. And on a related note with point #6…anyone know what’s happening with The Great Right-Wing Bills Fan Message Board Exodus of October 2020?? Are they coming back to PPP soon or was their move intended to be permanent? Should we instead migrate over there? I do miss our Trump-loving Bills fans terribly and worry about them isolated in their unchallenged right-wing internet echo chamber (just as this place is slowly becoming one for the left…). Also, will PPP be transitioning from “sub-forum” status to “club” status soon? If so, should we hold elections for club owners and club moderators? I recommend a decision-making triumvirate of owner, left-leaning moderator, and right-leaning moderator. Voting criteria should include familiarity with PPP’s longstanding culture of vigorous free speech, knowledge and passion for politics, enough free time to visit TBD regularly, mental stability, and good people skills. I think BuffaloHokie13 volunteered to be club owner at one point. A few names I would nominate for moderator on the left-leaning (or anti-Trump) side include Doc Brown, ALF, SoTier, Capco, BullBuchanan, shoshin, and Tiberius. Some names for me on the right-leaning (or anti-Biden) side would include Foxx, Azalin, KRC, GG, 3rdnlng, IDBillzfan, and leh-nerd skin-erd. I know I’m forgetting a lot of other good moderator candidates right now. Please don’t take your exclusion personally!!! EDIT: A grammar mistake. Poo. So…no replies to the last two paragraphs of my post??

Good afternoon, my beautiful Bills fans! Let’s get right to the presidential election analysis, shall we? We can safely assume 337 electoral college votes are locked in place, with Biden holding a 212-125 lead in this regard. That leaves 15 states and 201 remaining EC votes up for grabs tonight. I’m sticking with my Election Day prediction made on October 19 (see page 26 of this thread): 3 states of 20 EC votes I have holding for Team Blue from 2016 (Minnesota-10, Nevada-6, New Hampshire-4). 3 states of 46 EC votes I have flipping to Team Blue from 2016 (Pennsylvania-20, Michigan-16, Wisconsin-10). 9 states of 135 EC votes I have staying with Team Red from 2016 (Texas-38, Florida-29, Ohio-18, Georgia-16, North Carolina-15, Arizona-11, Iowa-6, Nebraska district-1, Maine district-1). Altogether, this means that I am predicting Biden to win by a fairly narrow EC margin of victory of +18, which is somewhat closer than what the majority of polls are predicting. I believe the election will come down to one state: PENNSYLVANIA. Could fracking end up being the issue that decides the election?? The main question now is whether or not Trump can pull off what would apparently be considered a significant upset…which is really just another way of asking how reliable these polls actually are when push comes to shove? Potential factors that could work in Trump’s favor: his longstanding voter base enthusiasm gap advantage, notions of any type of hidden systemic poll oversampling error, the infamous “shy Trump voter” effect (to whatever extent it may actually be), any relaxed progressive left vote (voting third party or staying home) due to a perceived safe Biden victory, GOP new voter registration surges I’ve seen reported, and that recent Gallup poll claiming a majority (56%) of people who feel they are better off financially under Trump compared to Biden. Some potential factors working against Trump: the recent COVID-19 case spikes in swing states such as Wisconsin, Trump’s poor October job approval rating from a presidential historical perspective, any Joe-mentum from Joe’s remarkably consistent lead (relative to Hillary’s in 2016) held since mid-April and especially since early June, the electorally unpredictable fear factor among liberals of losing the election or having it stolen from an orange-hued fascist, any debate performance boost Biden received in the minds of last-second undecideds and independents by not falling apart from dementia, and various cognitive biases in play from corporate media favoring Biden. The big wild card in this election may end up being the mail-in/absentee ballot contentions. Who knows how exactly this factor will play itself out tonight and possibly this week (or month?!)? I’d feel much more confident in my final prediction if we somehow had access to all of that valuable internal polling data which every major campaign collects and keeps guarded. Instead, all we have to work with are these public polls and clues from past elections. Anyway…we’re all making educated guesses at this point, so might as well just wait until tonight… Oh yeah…don’t forget to track all the extremely important Senate races tonight! I have 12 of them for you: Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina, both Georgias, Alabama, Texas, Iowa, Montana, Alaska, Colorado, and Arizona. You are looking at outdated Poles from 2019. The one on the left is Aleksandra Kielan and the one in the middle is Karolina Bielawska. And you chose the second-place candidate, Tibs. Hopefully that isn’t going to be a trend with you, beginning tonight?! BTW, beauty pageant girls are notorious for their impeccable makeup skills. You may think you have a Monmouth-caliber or Emerson-caliber Pole, but she may turn out to be as fake as a Trafalgar or Rasmussen after washing her face. Ok sorry…I am done with the lame Pole/poll jokes. I don’t do humor. I handle the dangerously subversive left-wing political manifestos here at PPP.

Yeah, “fair share” is vague populist political jargon. Though I should be “fair” to Joe Biden and admit that he does have a clearly articulated tax plan on his web site, and it is distinctly to the left of Donald Trump. Now how much of that would Joe actually push for and how much could he actually achieve during his presidency? Probably very little. Americans can’t ever agree on what constitutes paying a “fair share” of taxes. Liberals advocate for all types of progressive income tax codes. Far leftists demand highly progressive tax brackets to go along with stuff like Wall Street speculation taxes and aggressive closings of various tax loopholes. Libertarians seem to want flat taxes. Super libertarians probably want a Fair Tax on consumption only and not production (i.e. sales versus income). A few super duper libertarians want no taxation at all! I’m personally less interested in the ethical debates of various tax policies and more into the economic optimization ones. If forcing the top 10% to pay 69% is unfair, then what approximate range for this “share of total income taxes paid” percentage number would be considered reasonable? It happens to be a number heavily dependent on the particular population income distribution. And even with a proportional (flat) tax, the wealthiest 10% could still easily end up paying a very sizable portion of the total annual federal income tax revenue that is generated and collected. They will certainly pay a much larger portion than, say, the bottom 10%. That’s just plainly how the flat tax math works out for all realistic population income distributions. And forcing the bottom 10% to pay something like, say, the same 10% of the total federal income tax revenue as the wealthiest 10% would be insanely punitive toward the poor. It would also be impractical and mathematically impossible for most budgetary demand scenarios. Furthermore, what would be considered a fair share of the tax burden for the middle class? They are the economic engine of a consumer economy, but they will have to shoulder a bigger portion of the tax burden if some of the responsibility is taken off the wealthiest decile. There’s nothing fair about a flat tax!! It comes down to the marginal utility theory of income. Taxing 25% of someone who makes $1 million annually is a matter of inconvenience. Taxing 25% of the income of a single mother making $30,000 a year is a matter of survival. One of only two positive aspects of the flat tax is the simplicity in the tax code, but that’s a pathetic reason for destroying the socioeconomic mobility of a large swath of the population (it would also mean less jobs for accountants and IRS employees)! The other positive aspect is SUPPOSED to be the increase in job creation and private charity as the tax burden on the wealthy is reduced and the responsibility for improving social welfare shifts away from the government, but all the economic data I see suggests that is not actually the case in many macroeconomic scenarios (like the ones we’ve been living through for much of the past 40 years…including this current k-shaped recovery…). Yes, absolutely! The flat tax would serve as the catalyst issue needed to finally unite the white working class with the rest of the American working class on the political left. Cultural issues may matter more than economic ones for many people, but everyone has their limits. Republicans can’t win elections without the white working class. If the Austrian School economic libertarians so blatantly take over the GOP like that and start peddling their proportional and regressive tax policies, expect a very turbulent political realignment era to immediately follow. Actually…I’m not so sure a flat tax is even popular among those in the highest income tax bracket?? Simplified tax codes, after all, will close off many useful tax loopholes for the rich. But U.S. government debt is NOT the same as personal debt! Our federal government can issue its own currency (directly controlling inflation via monetary supply) and has a monopoly on risk-free treasury securities (inversely controlling interest rates via government debt). These are concepts on which Chicago schoolers, Krugman Keynesians, and MMT’ers can all agree. So the major questions and disagreements concern the “when” and “where” fiscal restraint should be practiced. As long as confidence remains high (relative to the rest of the world) in our government’s stability and as long as we are perceived to be responsible (i.e. not in danger of defaulting), I will argue that we have WAY more debt leeway than typical deficit hawks and austerity zealots think. As for revisiting the expected role of our federal government: yes, plenty of government waste to trim and departments to streamline, but there is also a certain silliness to looking at a late eighteenth century document as some sacred scroll. Sure, the U.S. Constitution is a remarkably effective first draft (er…second…Articles of Confederation and all) of guidelines for organizing a society in 2020 and beyond. Nonetheless, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have possibly anticipated all of the technological advancements made since the Industrial Revolution, the macroeconomic experiences and ethical cases analyzed since the Age of Enlightenment, the environmental science knowledge accumulated, and just the general overall explosion of sociological complexity witnessed over 231 years. From a modern perspective, IMHO, the two biggest components of society in which we must consider the federal government’s expanded role include all aspects of health care and all levels of education (albeit in a more nuanced coordination with the states for this latter one). I’d like to hear more from others on what they think would be a “reasonable” corporate tax rate. I believe Obama had 35%, Trump has 21%, and Biden wants 28%. “Reasonable” to me would be something like the GDP-weighted corporate tax rate average of the European countries plus Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. I don’t know what that would be…maybe halfway between Trump and Biden at ~25%? Then again, I wouldn’t recommend raising it while we’re still navigating through a pandemic-fueled recession. EDIT: format mistake with a quoted text.

Hmmm…how deep are you willing to delve into this subject?? I’d begin with the research work of the ever-so-controversial Professor George Borjas at Harvard and then follow the trail of co-authors and highly cited papers as you see fit. Some more advice for your joyous intellectual journey: 1. Don’t focus solely on studies of Latin American immigration to the Southwest. Lots of relevant research has been done on stuff like H-1B visa immigration trends, Islamic immigration to the EU, and low-skilled/unskilled Eastern European laborers in the UK. 2. Without knowing your background, I’d say that it helps to have a basic knowledge of microeconomics, macroeconomics, and statistics at a freshman/intro college course level to get anything truly meaningful out of this exercise. 3. Note how markets for low-skilled/unskilled labor follow typical supply-demand curves for goods and services (that is to say, no Giffen Paradox observed to elevate wages). 4. Also look into studies on the effects of globalization (NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, TPP, China PNTR, etc.) on non-college educated American workers. Job outsourcing is not quite the same as immigrant hiring, of course, because of how and where the generated wealth gets distributed, but the same basic mechanisms of wage suppression are present and exaggerated (i.e. more easily measurable). 5. Pay close attention to the differences in job type (i.e. skills and/or education required), immigration numbers, and economic consumption habits of the immigrant populations. These differences matter! Part of my disagreement with your stance on this topic is that I feel you are ignoring these subtleties and overgeneralizing. 6. The other part of my disagreement is a moral one: you may be valuing the slightest of economic improvements for the many (as measured by GDP or national unemployment percentage) over significant economic damage for the few (wage suppression in specific industries and substantially increased unemployment prospects for population subsets). Did this response help…? So start with Professor Borjas and his publication record at his website, Tibs! Godspeed!!

Tiberius and Brueggs: I’ll stay out of whatever remains of your debate, but I wanted to add a tiny recommendation from an economic point of view and not from any ethical or national sovereignty one. It’s helpful to think of two distinct sets of jobs: the set where there is a labor supply market of American workers and the set where there isn’t. With the latter (such as many manual labor jobs in the agricultural industries), the overall American economy most definitely benefits from illegal immigrants. With the former (such as jobs in the construction and hospitality industries), there is a net overall damage to the national economy mostly from wage suppression. And if you replace illegal immigrants with legal ones (naturalized citizens or those with foreign worker visas), the same effects hold true but the degree of these effects is subdued. I believe that is what the economic data tells us, at least, which also happens to match up with economic intuition. Congratulations, Egg Boy. You are now on The List. As soon as my communist buddies take over the American government, you will be immediately assigned to Gulag #716. Yours truly will be your supervisor. But before you fret, know that I’m one of the kinder gentler ones. Most of our time will be spent on politically themed arts and crafts using those annoying plastic Sisyphus boulder-esque wrong-handed safety scissors. There will also be forced feedings of my experimental vegan recipes (I don’t measure anything…I just “eyeball” it all) and required viewings of Drought Era Bills games versus the Browns (special emphasis on the Jauron years). “Awful” is a stretch. I’ll only partly concede my point in that I could have chosen a better example that couldn’t be flagged for technicalities. Jim Crow laws varied greatly by state, legal domain, legal language, and time period. In the early morning while typing my post, I was thinking of laws that ALLOWED Southern whites to decline services to blacks on account of race and not the laws MANDATING they do so. I thought the context would have made that clear enough, as I also referenced the 1964 Civil Rights Act…a government enforcement of non-racist behavior from most Southern whites, who were otherwise inclined to routinely exercise their freedom to be racists. You are correct when you state that government intervention is going to step on someone’s toes. That is always the case. Government restricts the freedoms in one place so to (hopefully) increase the freedoms in another. It is up to the lawmakers to decide which freedoms are valued and which are not, within certain obvious limits of course (i.e. protections of Constitutional rights). This really should not be considered a controversial assertion. All the time, rational citizens are choosing to value one set of freedoms over another: the freedom to breathe clean air versus an industrial company’s freedom to cut financial corners by polluting, the freedom to not be murdered from mentally unstable individuals versus the freedom to purchase flamethrowers/grenades/bazookas/tanks/anti-aircraft artillery on a whim, the freedom from labor exploitation (inhumane work conditions, unfair compensation) versus the freedom to run a company entirely as one sees fit, etc…I think we all get the point. I’m assuming that everyone here accepts the social contract and, therefore, the belief that not all government intervention is inherently wrong.

Yeah, I’m really only a Marxist in the sense that I think good ol’ Karl and Mr. Engels did an excellent job articulating the problems with laissez-faire capitalism. From the convenient vantage point of living in the early twenty-first century, however, I have to say that their nineteenth-century solutions to capitalism’s problems left a lot to be desired. With human nature having evolved into the current form that it did, I don’t think communism will work any time soon for complex social structures larger than a few hundred or so people. The classical liberal values of money, property, and socioeconomic stratification are here to stay…and that’s perfectly fine by me, really. I’m very much a pro-capitalism person. I just happen to believe that government has a significant role to play in saving capitalism from itself. So for the time being, I’ll proudly wear the scarlet letters, “S.D.,” in this country to identify myself as a social democrat. But I ultimately favor pragmatism and common sense over political and economic dogmatism, so who knows where my weird brain will be in, say, November 2024?? I hope you did well on your midterm exam?! Yes, Polish people rock! That’s why Hitler invaded our homeland first. Unbridled JEALOUSY. Cinga, I think we’re moving closer to a mutual understanding, but I need to make a few more clarifications. I’m defining tyranny simply as “any unreasonable and excessive control over an individual’s life.” That 1-D line you reference, as I understood it, is strictly a measure of the amount of GOVERNMENT control. Government control is distinct from corporate control in that a government can exercise its power to enforce law and order as well as its power to tax. One’s ability to escape government tyranny (leave country, vote for new politicians, peaceful activism/violent revolution) is quite different from one’s ability to escape corporate tyranny (leave job, boycott goods/services, use government to enforce regulations). I’m also defining corporate tyranny as the end state of either neoliberalism (companies hijacking a feeble government for the people) or of anarcho-capitalism (companies ruling in total absence of government restraint). These following three contentions undergird my definition of corporate tyranny: laissez-faire capitalism is terrible at resolving many market failures, it does not lead to anything close to optimal economic utility (i.e. well-being) at the aggregate (i.e. societal) level, and it is an amoral system frequently overrun with immoral sociopaths (as in…clinical diagnoses using DSM-5 criteria). With all of that out of the way, I’ll now restate two important themes from my last post: 1. More government control does not necessarily equate to less individual freedom. Equivalently, less government control doesn’t necessarily mean more liberty. One easily understood thought experiment among so many: a black family driving through a desolate region of the Deep South, desperately searching for food and gasoline service during the Jim Crow era, before all that pesky government intervention (1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, etc.). 2. The Democratic Party, relative to the Republican Party on that 1-D line of yours, is not consistently about more government control over the individual’s life. A prominent example among multiple: the broad Christian Coalition platform embedded within the Republican Party. Ok, so let’s parse through your list of 12 a little more. I assume by “income equality” you mean less extreme income inequality? The political right generally sees the extreme inequality as a feature and not a flaw of capitalism. Both sides may agree on 3 of these (eliminating racial bias, equal rights for everyone, a clean environment) in the abstract, but they often disagree greatly when you examine specific cases…to the point that the political left doesn’t believe the political right views these as legitimate societal problems to solve anymore. 7 of these that you list (better education, better health care, eliminating poverty, less people in prison, eliminating hunger, solving student debt problems, good housing for everyone) are often treated among the political right as individual moral failings (laziness, irresponsibility, hopeless incompetence) and not systemic problems for politicians to address. The right DOES make (valid) arguments that government intervention can make these 7 issues worse and that private charity can help redress them, but I always find these arguments partially adequate at best and willfully oblivious to the systemic flaws ingrained within capitalism. For the last one (good paying jobs for everyone), the political right simply has lower standards for what constitutes a “good paying job” at the lowest tiers of the wage scale. I encourage you to look into all of the advancements (energy transfer efficiencies, energy storage capabilities, materials engineering, etc.) that have been made in renewable energy technology within the past 5-10 years, compared to the first 10-15 years of this century (especially with solar!). Also, look into other countries around the world and examine how they have been transitioning their electric power infrastructures away from fossil fuels. Lots of quality academic research literature exists out there on electric power grid performances and costs using fully renewables, hybrid renewables with nuclear (my personal favorite!), and hybrid renewables that couple home/building energy systems with traditional fossil fuel power grids. The research is based on both international case studies and speculative ones for the future. This statement is worth exploring further: “When inequality grows, wages stagnate.” From a theoretical economics perspective, this doesn’t HAVE to be the case, but if often ends up being the case. Why exactly is that? Globalization, the destruction of unions, crony capitalism, and wealth-hoarding billionaires/multi-millionaires are 4 big reasons that I’m sure Robert Reich thoroughly covers in his “Inequality for All” documentary (oddly enough, I have yet to see it but eventually will!). By “wealth-hoarding” behavior, I specifically mean not investing money saved from marginal tax rate reductions back into society via domestic job-creating companies or social welfare programs like education. There’s another possible reason that I’m not sure gets discussed much. If we focus on the histogram shape of wage frequency versus wage distribution across the total U.S. population and run it through time (say, from 1980 through 2020), we’ll notice a couple interesting things. The first is that the middle class has been hollowing out for sure. The second is that there’s still more than enough “thickness” on the approximate upper half of the histogram to sustain a healthy-enough economy! In other words…if you do enough back-of-the-envelope area-under-curve calculations on the histograms and make temporal comparisons between them all, you will easily see how you can quietly convert a macroeconomy into one that caters predominantly to the wealthier portion at the near exclusion of the less wealthy portion. So contrary to what economic libertarians often argue, wages at the lower end don’t necessarily NEED to be increased in accordance with all the extra wealth creation (as measured by GDP) in order to have enough people purchasing these extra goods and services. Also not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between highest education level attained and wage tier. So how have we allowed all this to happen? Simple: corporate media propaganda and voter suppression. I have sooo much more to say on wealth inequality and wage stagnation, but it kinda looks like we have kidnapped the thread topic like it’s a governor of Michigan…so I will talk about this stuff somewhere else and sometime after the election hysteria dies down. Look for a new thread of mine in November. Here are some working titles: 1. “Neoliberalism and the death of the American Dream.” Not bad, Kay, not bad… 2. “Reaganomics: the hideous love child of Barry (Goldwater) and Ayn (Rand).” Meh… 3. “A 40-year golden shower: what really trickled down from Art Laffer.” Ew. 4. “K-shaped recovery, economic depression, socialist revolution.” Oooh I like it! Provocative AND apropos of current events. I think I’ll go with this one!

Trafalgar Group is about as reliable as Rasmussen. They’re coasting on their 2016 reputation for predicting Michigan correctly, but IMO that had everything to do with luck and not insight. A time traveler back to 2016 would find much more electorate insight from any randomly selected Bernie campaign volunteer in Michigan. They were all warning the Democratic Party of Hillary’s weaknesses in the Midwest! Anyway…I am suffering from poll-watching fatigue and cannot wait any longer to make my official Election Day predictions. I think I’ve been ready since the Friday after the first presidential debate! The few remaining undecided voters will have a negligible effect at this point, either not bothering to vote or approximately cancelling each other out on both sides. So barring any sudden candidate health crises or catastrophic natural disasters or World War 3 flare-ups within the next couple weeks, here they are: 1. President: I have Biden narrowly beating Trump 278 to 260 by keeping 50/53 of the 2016 electoral college map and then flipping Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. My reasons: I believe the polling methodologies used this year are largely correct. The modeling is not too dissimilar from what was used to predict the 2018 “Blue Wave,” and all have corrected the Midwest undersampling flaws by education level which plagued the 2016 polls. Future historians will say that Trump lost this election on the singular issue of his pandemic mishandling. Older people and suburban white women can’t forgive him for his callous and flippant treatment of COVID-19. Also, the pro-union white working class of the Rust Belt don’t hate Biden like they hated Hillary in 2016. The only factors I see keeping this election closer than the consensus poll projections are the party voter base enthusiasm differential that Trump enjoys, the expected number of mail-in ballots (disproportionately favoring Democrats) that will get thrown out on technicalities, and the small but measurable bump that Trump should expect from the fraction of his supporters who ignore and lie to pollsters. 2. Senate: This will be far more interesting to follow than the presidential battle! I’m projecting an earth-shattering transfer of power with 6 Rep-to-Dem flips (losers: Collins in Maine, Tillis in NC, Loeffler in Georgia, Ernst in Iowa, Gardner in Colorado, McSally in Arizona) and only 1 Dem-to-Rep flip (loser: Jones in Alabama). That would give the Democrats (with Angus and Bernie) a 52 to 48 majority. The problem with this prediction, however, is that so many of these Senate battles are neck-and-neck and well within the statistical margins of error in these polls. This could just as easily end up as something like a 53-47 Republican majority hold. But I’m sticking with my prediction. I think Americans are angry enough with Senate incumbent leadership this year, especially with how the pandemic economic stimulus response has been handled. 3. House: Democrats will hold it, going up from 232 to 244 (218 is needed for a majority). I’m feeling way too lazy to type out all my flips from 2018 lol. Pelosi will hold her seat over Buttar, which I hope will fuel a heightened sense of urgency among my fellow progressives. Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer potentially all in power for the next 2+ years?! Once the Great Orange Terror is removed, the Great Democratic Civil War between progressives and neoliberals must commence. In the words of legendary motivational speaker, Bartholomew Scott: “CAN’T WAIT.” 4. Governors: 27 to 23 in favor of the Republicans (VT, NH, WV, IN, MO, ND, MT, UT) over the Democrats (WA, NC, DE). Not exactly the boldest of predictions…but RealKayAdams keeps things REAL for ya. Time for Bills game! Woooooo!!!

Sorry 3rdnlng, I’ve been super busy for the past couple weeks and totally forgot to reply. I’m grouping my responses by topic: 1. Fracking: Ok, well at least it’s replacing coal power plants! FYI, a majority of Pennsylvanians nowadays consistently poll in opposition to Marcellus Shale fracking. I could theoretically support it, but on three future conditions that are unlikely to be met. The first condition is that it must be viewed not as an end-goal energy source, but rather as a transition-stage energy source toward a renewable energy solution package centered on nuclear and solar. That’s because any long-term greenhouse gas emissions benefits we get from carbon-specific reductions due to fracking are more than offset by the more devastating methane leakage in the short-term. The second condition is that the environmental concerns from underground water supply contaminants, air pollution due to the toxic chemicals released during fracking processes, and induced earthquakes/tremors must all be reassured following years of additional scientific research. The third condition is that the entire U.S. fracking industry must be subjected to WAY stronger regulatory oversight than the ridiculous level it currently enjoys. 2. Lumber: I’m surprised and disappointed that the U.S. is a net importer of it. I potentially really like your idea of government forestry service partnerships with private lumber/furniture/paper industries, but I hold the same forest management concerns that I have in the wildfire management topic…namely, how feasible is all this in terms of cost, manpower, and (in the case of the lumber industry) profitability? You can definitely pull me over to your side on this one, but I’d have to see numbers and calculations beforehand. Forest management methods matter as well (hey a neat “FMMM” acronym slogan…though it doesn’t quite roll off the tongue like BLM…), so I would also need reasonable forest habitat protection reassurances beforehand. 3. Energy independence: This is an admirable goal and sound economic strategy, but multiple paths to it exist. The U.S. has chosen to continue along the reliable fossil fuel status quo route while other countries have put forth successful efforts into alternative routes incorporating renewable energies. Since the 1970’s, the U.S. has never seriously entertained other energy options because the fossil fuel industry is a prominent subset of the corporate oligarchy that owns our country and dictates our public policy. I’m a somewhat reasonable hippie who understands the current transportation technology landscape, some of the environmental concerns related to extant resource mining techniques for renewables, the need for strategic petroleum reserves to prevent energy macroeconomic shocks, etc… These are all windows of opportunity, however, to leave open for certain continued activities like offshore oil/gas drilling, NOT for new plans like creating Athabasca tar sands somewhere else. Those who care only about money and not the environment should want the U.S. to be focused on renewable energy investments ASAP. The lucrative international energy market is rapidly heading in that direction. Let’s now get to the foreign policy component. The U.S. shouldn’t have the mindset where it feels it has the moral authority or the economic imperative to “dictate outcomes around the world,” as you say. A foreign policy doctrine not grounded in the Golden Rule inevitably tarnishes diplomatic and economic relationships everywhere. The Middle East is a textbook example of a region where misguided regime changes, short-sighted organized coups, and cavalier unilateral sanctions/embargos have led to all sorts of terrible unintended consequences that include energy market blackmailing. Even energy-dependent countries can still maintain prosperous economies if they engage in respectful and mutually beneficial relationships with other countries. Also, capitalist democracies can still have healthy trade relations with left-wing socialist/communist countries and right-wing fascist/authoritarian countries. One more thing…and this is super important…energy-independent countries can still exhibit dangerous economic market fragility and still be slaves to their own belligerent/manipulative foreign policy. You brought up Russia in a different context, but that country is a PERFECT example of the false security that a fossil-fuel based energy independence can bring. Russia’s economy is so disproportionately invested in oil and natural gas exports to Europe and to Middle East that it pressures them into aggressive confrontations and trade route disruptions abroad that hurt them in many other ways, including alienation from the U.S. and other potential NATO allies. Russia has enormous renewable energy potential with all the untapped transition metal oxide materials estimated to be within the Ural Mountains and throughout Siberia. Russia, like the United States, would be much better off economically by diversifying their national energy portfolio ASAP toward renewables (including nuclear…especially since they already have the Cold War refinery/enrichment infrastructure in place). 4. California habitability: As you know, I’m all about my high-tech solutions driven primarily by the private market and supported heavily by government-funded research whenever/wherever necessary. So I do like the concept of desalination plants…but aren’t their current technological forms too expensive, carbon emissions-intensive, and destructive to marine ecosystems and fisheries? Is that why there aren’t more of them already along the Pacific Coast? I also don’t see water shortage solutions like desalination plants and broader environmental solutions like high-speed rails/bullet trains as mutually exclusive pursuits. Both are inextricably linked together, anyway, through future state planning for energy/financial allocations and urban/suburban layouts. I’m glad that you mentioned bullet trains because re-envisioning public transportation is critical to reversing the problem of suburban sprawl, which I see as fundamental to the Cali wildfire problem (and to other environmental issues). A Sacramento-SF-SJ-Santa Barbara-LA-Riverside-SD high-speed rail “spine” could do wonders for the Cali economy in the same way that it has helped Europe and some of the Far East countries. Now as for Cali’s limited financial ability to make such bold environmental habitability decisions…yes, the neolibs and progressives have made a mess of the state budget, and I agree that more GOP politicians deserve a crack at reining in some of the wasteful spending. Nevertheless, what concerns me is that most conservative politicians don’t even think that many of these bold environmental decisions need to be made in the first place or that unfettered capitalism has played any inimical role. I don’t view California as a failed state, either, in the way that conservatives often portray it to be. California still props up the rest of the U.S. with the fifth largest economy in the world and with almost inarguably the number one collection of high-tech workforce talent on the planet. I maintain hope in them solving their problems! Hi, ALF! No, state public forestry/fire protection regulations don’t apply to federal public land and are different in nature from those applied to state private land. However, I’m pretty sure there are mutually agreed-upon regulatory overlaps between the state and the fed. Both, of course, maintain their separate turfs for regulation enforcement and forest land management. The USFS and California DFFP websites, along with the Cali residents here at PPP, would be much more useful if you want the regulatory details. Hope this helped?? No one has said anything about spontaneously combusting trees. Or at least I haven’t. The main issue at hand isn’t what initiated the fires, but rather what has caused them to become so large and destructive. See above reply. I don’t appreciate being called an “assclown” completely out of nowhere (especially from a PPP Moderator?!), and I REALLY don’t appreciate being categorized as a “liberal.” Act less like a cranky anti-social right-wing internet troll and act more like a mature adult. In case you didn’t know, hackneyed political one-liners and 5-minute YouTube videos from libertarian ideologues do not have value on par with peer-reviewed scientific literature. And BTW, Michael Shellenberger is not an accredited scientist. He’s an ecomodernist author playing the environmentalism heretic role in order to sell books. I already discussed his agenda and his latest book in the Global Warming Hoax thread (page 332, July 7). I agree with some of his ideas and disagree with many others. If you had fully read the second and third paragraphs of my post on page 92, you would have noticed that I can agree with Shellenberger, John Stossel, and Dr. Hugh Safford (presumably…because Dr. Safford only spoke two sentences between 3:50-4:00 in that video which were probably taken out of context) on the importance of forest management and on the fact that there is no definitive causal relationship between ANTHROPOGENIC global warming and the latest West Coast wildfires. If you really want another climate change dissertation out of me, you can first start by pointing out specific sentences from my post on page 92 with which you disagree (the third, fourth, and ninth paragraphs contain the climate change stuff…or look over pages 324-334 of the GW Hoax thread). I need details on my alleged “wrong think.” Next, provide about a couple sentences worth of example evidence you would need to see in order to reverse your current stances on MMGW and the Cali wildfires. These instructions apply to all of my haters. Or don’t do any of this…IDGAF either way, really. I’m quickly losing patience with all of the condescension and snark around here. This is now the third straight time within the past five months that you have completely avoided the content of anything I posted and made a beeline for the unprovoked personal attack. This is also now the second time you have equated my scientific “faith” with religious faith. FYI, religious faith is a conviction in something that is not subject to the scrutiny of empirical evidence. Scientific “faith” is a high confidence in the scientific method to eventually falsify wrong ideas using a combination of evidence, facts, logic, and reason. Furthermore, I am not at all blindly devoted to the theory of MMGW. If anything, I am inclined toward wanting to “believe” it to be false. But I need to see countervailing material which has been authored by people formally trained in climatology or related earth science subfields. I requested this in the GW Hoax thread and received nothing. Until this happens, I can only assume that the “MMGW = hoax” movement is nothing more than political propaganda funded by fossil fuel industries and motivated by a fanatical hatred of any form of government intervention whatsoever. If social democracy + anthropogenic climate change is my religion, then maybe laissez-faire capitalism + science denialism is yours??

Random PPP Note: While deliberately avoiding the main board and anything related to the Buffalo Bills this early morning, I decided to scan a few of the PPP pages beyond the first one. What I found were a bunch of interesting threads like this one that deserved a lot more TLC than they initially received. I also noticed a bunch of old threads whose titles are very similar to ones on the first page. So consider this your friendly reminder to look through pages 2+ more often! Everyone should pay careful attention to the details here! This 2019 Gallup poll asked only for political self-identification and did not get into actual voting history or stances on specific political issues. These are clearly separate things! The country may be noticeably center-right when it comes to political labels, but it leans slightly center-left (modern American standard…not the European one) on election day (examples: House of Reps composition, Presidential popular vote) and polls noticeably center-left on many important issues (off the top of my head: mid-/late-term abortion, unions, minimum wage laws/UBI, marijuana, health care, environment, education, regime change wars/military interventionism, economic nationalism/protectionism, progressive taxation, corporate financial contributions to campaigns). I place greater importance on voting history and on individual public policy stances than I do on political self-identification (or party registration). That’s because I don’t think the average American even has a good understanding of the meaning of already vague political labels. Lots of polling data has been compiled on this topic in support of my assertion. My personal canvassing experiences in the NYC metro area during the Democratic primaries also support these polling results. The cognitive dissonance I witnessed between labels and policies was astounding for these words: “liberal,” “progressive”, and “socialist.” Super minor contention with the poll: Gallup is normally very reliable, used a large sample number (29,000), and ended up with national results similar to others I’ve seen (something like 35% conservative, 40% moderate, and 25% liberal on average). But did the telephone surveys include cell phones too or just landlines? If the latter, would this skew the results in any way? Also, note the age demographic breakdown of these polls. Historically speaking, a portion of the U.S. population always turns more conservative with increasing age. The most obvious explanation is that people tend to accumulate wealth and have families as they get older, and so they become less willing to “share” that household wealth via assumed higher taxes from the political left. My question, though, is what happens when people DON’T accumulate wealth and have children with increasing age at nearly the pace of previous generations? Because this is exactly what’s happening now with Millenials (thanks to the Great Recession and to neoliberalism) and potentially with Generation Z in the post-pandemic years ahead. Just something to ponder... We are living under a tyranny of the minority for sure, but the real minority to be worried about is way smaller than the sum of Trump voters. The one-party corporate oligarchy is the true problem! Our government primarily serves to represent the interests of the 621 verified American billionaires. The interests of the rest of the 200+ million voting-eligible citizens are subordinate. This is not to say, however, that a viable solution would be to throw out the republic in favor of a true democracy. Although I’m definitely not a strict Constitutionalist and would make a number of changes to the U.S. Constitution if I could, I do rather like the stability its main framework has provided for so long (unlike, say, Italy’s). I would not want to tamper with key structures that serve as bulwarks against tyranny of the majority, such as the Electoral College, bicameralism, and the federalist system. Most (but not all!) major policy changes should come about slowly and only after much (rational) deliberation. And the bulk of policy change should originate at the state level and be resolved there, if possible. The best protections against extreme versions of tyranny of the minority end up being the same as those against tyranny of the majority: improved electorate education, greater first amendment freedoms, and increased civic engagement (voting, activism, etc.) so that all politicians at every level of government are constantly held accountable. Or that’s the theory behind how things should work, at least. A constitutional amendment may also be necessary to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United v. FEC. In any case, Democrats and fellow lefties must stop wallowing in the political victim role and start putting in the work to figure out how to energize the base and win over independents, moderates, and apathetic voters. Their votes are there for the taking in every state…yes, even in the dark red ones! 90+ million voting-eligible Americans don’t even vote!!!

Hi, Capco! Do you know the source and the date for that graphic? I’m surprised to see the Democratic Party positioned to the left of the Western world’s median party line. The voter base of the Democrats may be moving left, but the party leadership under Obama, Hillary, and Biden has been a continuation of the slow rightward drift since the 1990’s (at least on the meat-and-potatoes issues in economics, health care, environment, and foreign policy). On the European side of my surprise, I must be mentally stuck in the era before politicians like Marine Le Pen were considered serious political candidates. European politics shifted sharply to the right during the Syrian Civil War refugee crisis. Maybe I have been too slow to realize just how large and enduring the shift has been. What complicates this graphic are big policy issues that don’t fit so neatly into the simple left-right political spectrum anymore (namely economic nationalism versus free trade globalism). Also, some of the recent major losses for the European left (Jeremy Corbyn the most notable) can be attributed to candidate personality weaknesses and political strategy blunders more so than to unfavorable leftist policies. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you type, so I’m curious to know what you consider your political ideological orientation to be? My own is Revisionist Marxism, somewhere on that red “social democracy” rectangular region of the image you posted…somewhere between AOC and Tulsi Gabbard (who, incidentally, are now squabbling with each other over ballot harvesting voter fraud…I’m taking Tulsi’s side). Cinga, I highlighted the text where I believe you went wrong in your thinking. A lot of important nuances are lost when you try to force the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum onto a one-dimensional line. Consider splitting public policy issues into two dimensions: all of the economic freedom ones and then all of the personal freedom ones. A common mistake people make when thinking along the traditional left-right 1-D spectrum is that they place too much weight on the economic freedom issues and overlook the civil liberties stuff. It’s a very understandable mistake because we Americans now take for granted the full list of civil rights victories that have been achieved for women, minorities, non-Christians, and LGBTQ over the past generation. But we can’t forget the unresolved left-wing libertarian issues like police brutality, protest/civil disobedience rights, immigrant human rights, drug legalization, animal rights, capital punishment, euthanasia, and whistleblower protections…or right-wing libertarian ones like gun rights and internet neutrality/censorship/first amendment stuff…or poorly defined ones like abortion and affirmative action. So once we move from a 1-D line to a 2-D square, I hope the distinctions between socialism and fascism become a bit more clear. Socialism doesn’t technically address the personal freedoms, but it’s traditionally associated with a generally more libertarian perspective on these matters. Fascism is authoritarian on both the economic and personal freedoms, although the government’s economic intrusion is different in nature from that of socialism with respect to how ownership of the means of production is organized. When you apply these distinctions to Hitler’s historical “accomplishments” as a political leader, you will see that he ruled as a quintessential fascist and not at all like a socialist. In fact, Hitler thought of workers as inherently inferior to business owners and not to be trusted with large shares of responsibility. The use of the “socialist” label in the “Nazi” title was hollow, done solely for political strategic gain in Germany between 1918-1933. “Actions speak louder than words” is the apt maxim here. Hitler can say to historians that he is a socialist…just like I can say to TSW posters that I am everyone’s favorite GMFB host!! My biggest frustration with modern American political discourse is how sloppy we all tend to be with political labels, including “socialism” and “fascism.” I’m guilty of this, too, from time to time! Words should have specific meanings and political labels should have specific definitions. Political labels should be applied with historical context in mind. Is Trump actually a fascist? Well he certainly dabbles in strongly worded law-and-order rhetoric and nebulous racial dog whistling, but compared to early twentieth century European politics? In practice, I’d say of course not! Political labels should also have well-understood demarcations among policy gradations. Much of what gets called “socialism” these days can be more accurately described as “mixed economies.” Referring to Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer as “socialists” is cringeworthy to me (they are “liberals”). Referring to AOC or Bernie as “socialists” is still problematic because they are proponents of mixed economies, but it’s acceptable enough to me because a nationalized health care industry would represent a significant chunk of our total economy. For my final point before turning my attention to the Bills game, I encourage everyone to challenge the common association of authoritarianism with tyranny and libertarianism with freedom. With either authoritarianism or statism or totalitarianism, I’m referring to a simple definition of more government control, while with libertarianism I mean less government control. When you take that 1-D line of yours and keep moving from authoritarianism toward libertarianism, you will escape government tyranny but will then approach another type of tyrannical dystopia called “corporate tyranny.” The American libertarian movement (and therefore most of the PPP forum) aggressively denies the manifold losses of economic freedom under corporate tyranny (dissolution of unions, no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, monopolies, crony capitalism, all types of market failures, etc.), so let’s focus on another type of freedom that is near and dear to my heart. Let’s try expanding that 1-D line into a 5-D hyperdimensional public policy cube (lol…all my wonderful readers are hating on me now…) featuring economic issues, personal/cultural freedom issues, foreign policy, political rights, and environmental issues. I’m very libertarian on the middle three, but the devilish little eco-socialist in me wants everyone to focus on that environmental “dimension.” More government control in this domain can irrationally limit economic growth, but it can also INCREASE our individual ENVIRONMENTAL freedoms from corporate tyranny by protecting our health and property and financial resources from all the negative economic externalities (i.e. pollution) that companies otherwise get away with under free-market capitalism. There are other types of tyranny besides the corporate one, of course, with which government can help rectify. Religious tyranny played a dominant role for much of recorded human history, but its effect has (mostly) receded for the West with the help of government (and scientific reasoning). I would also generalize the word “tyranny” a bit to include genetic tyranny, biological/physical limit tyranny, random life misfortune tyranny…government CAN have a positive role in some aspects of these domains, but yeah…it’s complicated…

The latest on NuNu is that she is recovering well at a local rescue farm and now has an excellent chance of not having to be euthanized. The local Chicago news picture, though, that I saw of NuNu lying on the ground with her bandaged legs is pretty heartbreaking. She did suffer some permanent damage to her body. Of course I don’t have anything positive to say regarding Adam Hollingsworth a.k.a. “Dreadhead Cowboy.” He has been charged with a felony for aggravated animal cruelty and is expected to serve a non-trivial amount of time in jail because of prior felonies. I don’t even remember what specific cause this was for…census taking? BLM? Inner city child safety? All important causes, but now completely overshadowed by his despicable mix of stupidity and psychopathy. And all the social media idiots defending him can suck Josh Allen cantaloupe-sized balls, too. In honor of NuNu and other abused animals, this October month I must entreat you to watch two notable documentaries (Earthlings-90 min long, Dominion-120 min long) for free on YouTube. A fair warning is that most people find the video footage extremely difficult to watch, but it’s important to watch it unfiltered. Also look into the Anonymous for the Voiceless international organization. Aside from animal rights political activism, the best way to end all forms of animal abuse is to go fully vegan. You can always start out with a modest reduction of meat, dairy, and egg consumption and see how you feel. Or just try going full vegan for a week or two. Please consider it for your own health if not for the animals!! FWIW, I’ve been steady at about 19 BMI with perfect vital sign numbers ever since I went 100% vegan years ago…with, like, very minimal effort too.

Hi 3rdnlng, yes this is a very important topic that I should review in some depth. My summarized thoughts on the California wildfires topic are that the political right seems overly focused on forest management, the political left seems appropriately focused on climate management, the far right for some reason is fixated on Antifa arsonist management, and I wish everyone would spend a lot more time discussing suburban development management. Have decades of negligent forest management played a role in this year’s wildfires? Absolutely, but only to some extent. Clearing dead wood, implementing controlled burns, creating strategic break lines in forests, trimming branches around electric power lines, and allowing natural fires to run their course during prior decades would have all mitigated the overall crisis in many locations. But in terms of both cost and manpower, it is highly impractical (33 million acres of forest in the state, about 10% of which has currently burned this season) to think these efforts alone could have reduced the wildfire spread and minimized the wildfire risk to levels that Californians would have found tolerable. Climate change, whether man-made or natural, is undoubtedly the root cause of the abnormally strong wildfires this year. California’s measurable drought seasons have lengthened and become drier, warmer, and windier over the years. Statewide vapour-pressure deficits this summer were at all-time highs. August was also the hottest month on record in California. Changes like these have enabled bark beetles to proliferate in larger regions and in additional ways compared to the recent past. So many more tree deaths from the greater desiccation and from the increased bark beetle damage have created a lot more flammable dry wood than was previously found within the forests just decades ago. To be clear, the dramatically increased wildfire activity in California, Washington, and Oregon is not conclusive proof one way or the other of MAN-MADE global climate change. However, the severity of these regional fires and droughts (5 of 10 worst fires ever recorded in California are happening right now), the speed at which these regional changes are happening, and similarly observed wildfire strengthening in other parts of the world like Russia and Australia are all perfectly in line with anthropogenic climate change predictions made in the late 80’s (most prominent: James Hansen Senate testimony in June 1988). Trump has made several specific comments recently on the California wildfires that demand immediate correction. He keeps blaming liberal politicians and radical environmentalists within the state for forest mismanagement, but about 55% of California’s forests are federal land and about 40% are private, with only about 5% the responsibility of the state. Trump has also pointed out that Texas and parts of Europe have managed to avoid such crazy wildfires, thus proving definitively in his mind that it’s a unique California forest management issue and not a MMGW one. The problem with his logic here is that…well…Texas and Europe inherently have different climates than California, they have very different forest habitat compositions, and this does nothing whatsoever to disprove man-made global warming since no one has ever argued that its effects get applied evenly throughout the planet. Furthermore, I believe Trump referenced an infamous graph from the USDA Forest Service which showed that total annual U.S. burned forest acreage during the 1930’s was multiple times higher than today. The biggest problem with that graph is that the data didn’t distinguish forest wildfires from grassland/range fires or incendiary (i.e., known to be deliberately planned) fires prior to the 1960’s. I really don’t know what else to say to MMGW skeptics since there is never going to be a “smoking gun” piece of evidence in support of (or against) this scientific subfield. This isn’t like proving the law of gravity. At some later point in time, the accumulating evidence of its veracity (or falsehood) will have to outweigh the urge to prove the other political side wrong. I won’t get into any of the Antifa arson allegations. Even if we had definitive proof of them starting so many of these fires, it’s kinda irrelevant to the topic. We’re not discussing the INSTIGATION of the wildfires (be it lightning or human-related activity), but rather the SPREAD of these conflagrations. I assume that I already lost most of the PPP audience with these previous paragraphs, but now here is where I start to lose everyone! The more fundamental problem is unrestrained suburban development, along with its corollary of inadequate urban planning and the much broader corollary of unrestrained capitalism within the context of rapid population growth. My general problems with sprawling suburbia are the amount of habitat destruction they wreak, in terms of total space, as well as the incredible space-inefficient strain they put on our energy grid and on our fossil fuel demands. I would like to see a constructive dialogue on how to make concentrated urban living more palatable, but…yeah…that’s not gonna happen in the year 2020 with the pandemic and the rioting. So let’s return to the specific topic of California. Mother Nature appears to be insisting that this many people shouldn’t be living there. As if this wasn’t apparent enough during the time of Mulholland’s water wars, it’s especially apparent now that suburban boundaries are intruding deeply inland and encroaching into shrublands, pine forests, and all types of forestry ready to burn naturally during California’s lengthy dry seasons. I could go scorched earth (pun intended) on the environmental consequences of laissez-faire capitalism tonight, but I won’t…I’ll only mention that environmental issues (including housing development zones) are way too important and complex for their currently insufficient regulation/oversight and probably shouldn’t be left up to purely democratically elected politicians, either. So at the national level, that is why I’d like to break up the executive branch into smaller branches via the (admittedly difficult) constitutional amendment process. I’d leave some of the 15 executive departments exclusively for the President (Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Veterans Affairs), but I’d like to siphon off some of the other executive departments’ responsibilities for a fourth “environment branch” (parts of the Interior, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, HUD, HHS) as well as for a fifth “economics branch” (parts of the Treasury, Commerce, Labor, Education, and maybe even State to pair with the Federal Reserve). For these environment and economics branches, right now I’m thinking primarily along the lines of a panel of tsars a la the Supreme Court, but with term limits. My aforementioned solution would also apply at the state level, of course, under the same federalist system that the three familiar branches currently enjoy. Any disagreements here? No? Wow, really?! Good! Remember: the best solution doesn’t have to be a perfect one or even a good one, but the least crappy one. In addition to the West Coast wildfires topic, the links in your post allude to a bunch of other environmental topics that I covered in the Global Warming Hoax thread (pages 324-334 from April through July). So I won’t be redundant on these positions: man-made climate change is real, solar renewables are good, wind renewables are overrated, fracking is very bad, fossil fuel subsidies should be removed, fossil fuel-motivated American interventionist foreign policy is terrible, many irrational environmentalists push counterproductive bureaucratic regulations, and most Democratic politicians like Pelosi and Newsom and Obama are major climate change hypocrites. The one exception that I don’t think I ever covered is the urban heat island effect on weather stations. For those unfamiliar with the concept, this is the warming effect on weather station instrumentation from the absorbed/re-emitted heat of nearby concrete, asphalt, and bricks. There have been numerous studies of this effect, the most comprehensive being the famous NASA GISS paper published in 2001 which should be easy to find online. Included in it are cross-analyses of temperature data over a 30-year period, using station data both from recently industrialized areas and from still isolated ones. The measured urban heat island effect turns out to be pretty small and practically negligible when seen in full temperature plots. The measured effect is consistent for weather stations throughout the world, including some of the most rapidly industrialized places in China. The specific technique used to isolate and account for these discrepancies in the data is also described in (painful) detail in the paper. One of your three posted internet links references a challenge to this landmark paper from known MMGW skeptic, Anthony Watts, at his “Watts Up With That” website. Watts cherry-picks isolated regional data anomalies here to disprove a global trend, but unfortunately for him, the anomalies he cites at certain U.S. weather stations were debunked years ago as signal processing quirks from diurnal temperature range variations. Climate change skeptics still fixated on the urban heat island issue need to explain the observed temperature changes in the most remote weather stations of the Northern Hemisphere (Russia, Greenland, Canada, Alaska) where the global warming effect is most pronounced. They also need to explain all of the ocean warming data…