What's up party people? Great to see some of you in Ft. Worth. It was a good reminder of how much I miss y'all and the DBD. Now that I've settled into this not-so-new-anymore job, maybe I can sneak back on for a taste.
Having traveled some, there are pros and cons to every country. Even in countries controlled by strongmen, there usually is some kind of social safety net. Subsidized food, government jobs where unemployment is high, etc. Until recently America was weak in this area with a society moving to the haves and have-nots and a shrinking middle class. While America remains a strong country, it no longer is the shining city on a hill.
Yep. It seems exceedingly unlikely that among these trillions and trillions of stars that we are the only life. There are countless planets in habitable zones across the Universe. Many of them ought to have developed life (or will develop life).
I don't believe in mandates personally even ones like the vaccine (at the public level). Private schools and businesses in my opinion can have it but anytime I'm getting word that like Walnut Creek or Millbrae consider a mandate for business I get agitated and yappy (if you ever meet me you'll quickly find out I run my mouth at the slightest things that inconvenience me so having to pull out my vax card at a restaurant because of a city mandate will agitate me). Obviously I don't expect people to agree (don't get it twisted everyone should get the vaccine) but I hate that it comes from the governments (to me it will mean a lack of trust and more backlash in the future with mandates) as opposed to individuals implementing their own mandates (have at it like I said).
One in four American adults have yet to receive even one dose of the coronavirus vaccine. To explain the risk they pose to themselves and others, we propose an analogy: The choice to remain unvaccinated is equivalent to driving while intoxicated.
Some might balk at this comparison, but here are the similarities. Both causes of severe bodily harm are largely preventable — covid-19 through vaccination, and drunken driving by not driving after drinking alcohol. Both are individual decisions with societal consequences.
For Cugel, sycasey, buckeyebear, berk97, yes we cannon: Upon further review I think the public schools and vaccine mandates with polio, chicken pox, etc are correct I just didn't happen to think that far and that's on me. However I still disagree with the premise that governments should be mandating what businesses do (back to me pulling out a vax card at a restaurant), I just don't think on that front its necessary. And lastly to Cugel's assessment, it sucks for the compromised people who cant get the vaccine, but as for the people who willingly dont get it/ignore it, I just say "too bad so sad", its not my problem. I'm a firm believer in you get what you pay for, and if you choose to ignore science I will not feel a second of guilt for the massive death they caused.
Governments already mandate what businesses do in many ways. Environmental regulations, for example. Do you like pollution? If not, thank the government for regulating that.
I'm all about erring on the side of freedom, but sometimes everyone making their personal choices becomes a huge net negative to society/civilization as a whole and the government has to step in. Maybe vaccine requirements directed at businesses is not the right approach and reasonable people can disagree about the methods. But "governments shouldn't mandate" is not a tenable position. Why else is there a government?
re: "too bad so sad". that would be fine if they existed in a vacuum. the problem is the disruption their illnesses at scale causes to the rest of society, not to mention the fact that they create a medium for virus mutations and given enough time one that is resistant to the current vaccines.
Mandates are for when people in significant quantity have demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to come to a responsible conclusion on their own. I don't think I'm too far out on a limb in stating that we all would prefer fewer mandates would be needed, but increasingly, its been demonstrated that that is not the case. Like it or not, we are all part of a community, and inconvenient as it might be for those who are concerned first and exclusively with personal choice, the consequences of most decisions are not confined to those making them, or even to those in their immediate circle. Others will be affected, and most individuals are not capable of being fully responsible (meaning actually dealing with all the consequences) for their actions, much less willing to be. So the community, via the organizational tool we call a government (better than an armed mob that used to do it) has to intervene when the group's interests are adversely impacted.
I agree with that it’s too bad, so sad choose not to get the vaccine and end up getting Covid. However, it still impacts society as a whole. Even people who are vaccinated can still catch Covid and while they may not die, it can still make them sick enough to miss work. Most restaurant and hospitality workers do not get sick or vacation time so if they miss work, they are missing out on money that they need to buy food and pay their bills.
True, thats just something im not used to yet and something ill learn over time in regards to those who have to miss work while being vaccinated. However Im not there yet and am so far at the too bad so sad stage of this.
As a follow-on comment, I am a reflexive seat belt wearer. I don't even turn the key in the ignition until I've buckled up. It's almost like breathing with me. It became a thing when Mrs Slug was pregnant with our first child.
I don't think wiata78 is talking about manufacturer mandates. I think he's referring to vehicle operator and passenger mandates to use seat belts.
In California, failure to wear a seat belt was originally a secondary violation; that is, a vehicle couldn't be stopped because someone in the vehicle was observed not wearing a seat belt. Sometime in the late 90s/early 00s it became a primary violation: you could be stopped if you were observed not wearing a seat belt.
Right, FS. I knew plenty of people, of various political bents, who felt that seat belt wearing should be a personal choice. I was one of them! But as a practical matter, it seemed that if you had a law, then you could just say "it's the law" even if your macho friends said that wearing a seatbelt was chicken.
Now that you mention it, I remember conversations about seat belts with people I knew, too. I was in favor of cutting down traffic deaths, so wearing a seat belt was an easy ask.
I understood the macho argument about seat belts then as being about defiance. The anti-vaxxer argument today is the same thing, only re-stated.
19, still advancing, my line of thought resides more in the way long term vs now and how we can save lives. We've seen how many people protest for the smallest things I just don't want it to blow up and get set off because we know tension is there while I'm alive
I realize it's moot, but will they release the results of the vote for the replacement had the vote on the recall been in favor? Or did they not even tabulate it? I'm just curious how the ranking of the potential replacements fell out.
The California legislature should make one common sense change that will discourage future political power grabs through the recall process - designate the Lieutenant Governor as the Governor's successor in the event of recall.
Then you don't have a second part of the ballot and you don't have candidates like Larry Elder or other tinfoil hat /vanity candidates making a mockery of the process.
Agreed. The recall process is an important tool in the event someone truly does not represent the electorate. But it is NOT a substitute for the normal elective process, and there is an order of succession for a number of reasons. The California 2-part process that is both a recall and an extra elective process is unlike any I've encountered elsewhere.
Limiting the potential successor to the Lieutenant Governor also means that there will be no recall absent dereliction of duty or outright incompetence. Voters will not overturn the prior election on a whim. And gathering signatures would be more difficult if people know that the likely outcome means that there is a known successor, especially if it's someone from the same political party.
is that what the number are? That's great. I saw 538, I think it was, showed it something like 57-41 but I took that with a grain of salt given 2016 and assumed the worst.
538 has lost its shine for me since Nate Silver tried to tell the world he was oh-so-much-more-clever than trained epidemiologist. Separately, I sometimes get Nate Silver and Mike Silver confused.
I've been following him this whole time and I don't see it. He sometimes says things that are controversial among his left-leaning followers but usually at least backs it up with some data.
My take is that a lot of people don't like having their prior assumptions challenged by the "data guy."
counterpoint: he'd be bad at epidemiology no matter what ethnicity he was. Sometimes there's no substitute for understanding what you're talking about. I've found that a good source for different thinking about the pandemic from someone who knows the underlying subject is Scott Gottlieb.
I'm not trying to claim that Silver is any kind of expert on COVID. But if you add up all of his actual positions on the matter, they seem pretty middle-of-the-road to me. Nothing super objectionable. People get really mad at him on Twitter, though.
Newsom: No was not the only thing that was expressed tonight. I want to focus on what we said yes to as a state. We said yes to science. We said yes to vaccines. We said yes to ending this pandemic…
Very gratifying. Newsom can use this as a platform to get into national politics, which I think is his long term goal. I think given the circumstances of Covid, he has done a good job.
A bigger slaughter than I thought it would be. However just from my view i'm ready to get him out in '22 with another Dem, Newsom has been mediocre at best.
The power of incumbency is far too great for a governor to face a legitimate primary. The only time that wouldn't be true is when a Lt Gov ascends to the office having not won it her/himself in an election.
First off, French Laundry. Can't have that, I don't care how much they tried to dance around it, that will never fly with me. 2nd of all, 3 sets of California stim checks were announced, not one came to my family's bank account/house. 3rd, the tiered system was an actual mess (although different since we have the vaccine now) since we basically carry slightly less numbers. 4th is just general inconsistencies (for example being proactive in climate change but not doing any executive orders that could've helped fire season, seems like all bark no bite to me.)
I feel that while climate change and wild fires are connected, the solutions are very different. Climate change will require large systemic solutions that will take both years to implement and probably decades before we see any results.
Wild fire is different. You will never stop wildfires from happening, the only thing you can do it try to mitigate their damage and intensity. The only way to really prevent mega wildfires is through forest management but jurisdiction and ownerships of land, state, federal, county and private makes it difficult to manage. Forest management would mean removing dead plants and removing invasive/non native plants, which isn’t controversial but it is expensive. It gets controversial (and still expensive) when removing and thinning dense vegetation because that would mean removing living plants and trees, which a lot of homeowners and even environmentalist would resist.
Also, W/R/T wildfire, the reason the Caldor fire didn't become another Dixie fire is because of all the forest management done in that area in the last three years. They had cleared out a ton of brush and done a lot of thinning in the forest, which didn't allow it to become a megafire that burned so hot its march could not be stopped. Do we need more? Sure, but someone (I don't know who but it's been recent) has done some effective work getting the USFS to start doing their fucking jobs re: forest management.
Do not take this the wrong way or take it now you feel but this comes off as the opinions of 19 year old without a lot of life experience.
Besides the French Laundry dinner, what do you think any governor could or should do for points 3 and 4.
I assume for number 2, your family didn’t qualify for a stimulus check due to income requirements and not simply because Newsom didn’t want to send one to your family.
There was a way to check if each person qualified for the stimulus check. I think it was by income so it's entirely possible they made too much to get the money. I think it's prorated by income to 75K max.
My family qualified with flying colors (i.e not even close to the limit) for each of the 3 checks only for none of them to come and that really pissed me off. #3 is probably more of a personal grievance while #4 is telling them to get a backbone because a 2 party agreement bill seems to be dying by the day in CA and Washington.
Did you or anyone in your family contact someone from the State to ask why they didn’t get one? If they qualify they should receive a check and if they haven’t do to some error it should be correctable.
Which Dem would that be? Because no one is tearing it up so that Newsom should be shaking in his boots.
Don't be fooled: we're in the midst of a generational change in politics, nationally and in California. It just might take another 10 years to play out.
If SoCal Democrats could ever get their shit together, set aside their differences and coalesce around one candidate I could see a SoCal Dem challenging Newsom but that probably won’t happen.
I agree that no one is tearing it up but I like Kevin Mullin's authentic feel and all around ability to be relatable in doing small things like going to baseball games in small towns or being in the rafters at a basketball game.
Whew...I wrote a long response to your "I have to show a vax card, so I no like mandates" posts, but then deleted it since it woulda come across as too harsh. But then I come down here and see more 19-yo hot takes.
We don't need our politicians to be our buddies (hanging out at ball games). We got W because "I could have a beer with him". I want smart people. If they are relatable, that's a bonus. Clinton had it; Obama sometimes; Kerry and Gore...well, let's not go there.
Newsom isn't my favorite person. Rather silver-spoony and entitled. But he's wonky and tries. "Trying to keep Californians safe from COVID" – better than pretty much any other state – is worth 1000 points in my book. And if "hypocritical dinner at French Laundry" is the worst you've seen a politician do, well then consider yourself lucky. Or young.
"if you ever meet me you'll quickly find out I run my mouth at the slightest things that inconvenience me"
You might want to work on that. Especially when you're in a room with old people...and seemingly want to sell them knives ;-) [I think that's you?]
The focus of what passes for security and fiscal issues is shifting below our feet. It used to be that security was primarily concerned with military might and response. Now, I think it includes environmental issues the most obvious being climate change. Terrorism has also changed the issue of security in that it is intertwined with environmental issues and also touches upon how we treat others who do not live in the US and consequently, how they view the US. And yet, we spent military resources combating terrorism overseas, so there's an acknowledgement that security is still an issue that includes the military.
On fiscal issues the driver is wealth inequity and inequality. That's far different from how Boomers have viewed the fiscal landscape that is/was focused on what happens to one's personal pocketbook. Millenials acknowledge that fiscal health is much broader than what happens at home or in one's communitiy. There are national forces at work that and has much broader implications that touch on social justice.
I see the focus being much broader than what it has been in the past. And while there will always be social conservatives (folks with retrograde views of social mores) and bigots, I feel Millenials have a much greater willingness to engage social issues and challenge the old tired concepts of race and what had passed for "normal". I really feel that Millenials will make serious dents in the old tired walls that keep the United States from becoming a more perfect Union.
Ugh. To maintain a semblance equanimity, I dropped watching the A's & following AN regularly three weeks or so ago. With the Bear's start, sans the A's , I reduced the aggravation factor.
Sigh....they really have to step up their game with a handful of contests left. They have to win the series against the Mariners and Astros to get a shot at the second wildcard.
A very unsatisfied customer. If Cal Athletics wants me to buy a ticket to a game at Cal Memorial, two things must happen - (1) the pandemic had better get under control and (2) the football team is going to have to perform much better than it has. That team is backsliding, regressing, into Tom Holmoe/Joe Kapp territory.
It isn’t like Cal was filling Memorial before Covid. Low fan turnout in recent years, plus odd year schedule, plus 0-2 start equals plenty of room for social distancing?
Not saying I'm happy with it, just that if you're looking at it from the outside, single-digit losses to Nevada and TCU don't look terrible enough to put a team in the Bottom 10.
It looks and feels like Holmoe all over again. Holmoe and Wilcox were both DCs and have teams where the more reliable and stronger unit is defense and offenses that struggle to consistently score or move the ball.
Let me know when Cal has 4 wins in the Pac-12. After losing to Nevada and TCU and looking bad doing it, I'm not sure there are 4 wins on the Pac-12 schedule.
5 conference wins plus Sac State would equal 6 and may get us a bowl chance, though we would probably have to finish 7-5 to be sure about it. GO BEARS!
First group - Cal loses to UW and Arizona. Historically, Cal has a tough time with both teams. 2 wins max (OSU and Wazzu).
Second group - Cal doesn't beat LSJU or Oregon or UCLA. All three of those teams are too good. Colorado is a possible victory but only because Karl Dorrell is coaching them. USC will beat us because they've fired Clay Helton.
Right now, I see only three likely wins. As I said before, regression.
I feel the opposite way. I think the backup will look fine against Sac State. For that reason, I don’t see Wilcox putting in the backup because they don’t want any controversy.
"Doubt" was also the title of a film that starred Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. It was a good movie.
Good stage play as well.
What's up party people? Great to see some of you in Ft. Worth. It was a good reminder of how much I miss y'all and the DBD. Now that I've settled into this not-so-new-anymore job, maybe I can sneak back on for a taste.
Yoooooo
New CGB, who dis?
aw yay
YES PLEASE
Likewise, it was good seeing you again too.
Or, apparently, flooding.
Having traveled some, there are pros and cons to every country. Even in countries controlled by strongmen, there usually is some kind of social safety net. Subsidized food, government jobs where unemployment is high, etc. Until recently America was weak in this area with a society moving to the haves and have-nots and a shrinking middle class. While America remains a strong country, it no longer is the shining city on a hill.
American myth, rooted in Puritan settlers ideology that we ever were the shining city on a hill.
Belief
STEVIE 👏🏽 WONDER 👏🏽 IS 👏🏽 NOT 👏🏽 BLIND! I will die on this hill.
That before every season kicks off, Cal remains mathematically eligible for the Rose Bowl.
That is a fact!
I don't believe that it's not butter.
That we do not get reincarnated or any sort of afterlife exist. Once we die, it all just goes black and we cease to exist.
agreed. however, this is a strange case where the simplest possible explanation seems to be the least popular one.
When I die I hope to be placed amongst the immortal gods in Elysium. (not)
When I die I hope to be awaited at the gates of Valhalla where I shall ride eternal, shiny and chrome.
WITNESS ME! I LIVE, I DIE, I LIVE AGAIN
^^this^^
California Golden Blogs, wasn't it?
In the Matrix.
We were nowhere and nothing.
take the blue and gold pill
Unfortunately I took the blue bill. In the Matrix, Cal is a CFB powerhouse that has won won 7 of the last 10 national championships.
That we are not alone in the universe.
Yep. It seems exceedingly unlikely that among these trillions and trillions of stars that we are the only life. There are countless planets in habitable zones across the Universe. Many of them ought to have developed life (or will develop life).
Or have developed life, which has also already ceased to exist.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
there are all those recent UFO sightings by that Air Force pilot.
just sayin' ...
God
as in, i do not believe ...
I don't believe in mandates personally even ones like the vaccine (at the public level). Private schools and businesses in my opinion can have it but anytime I'm getting word that like Walnut Creek or Millbrae consider a mandate for business I get agitated and yappy (if you ever meet me you'll quickly find out I run my mouth at the slightest things that inconvenience me so having to pull out my vax card at a restaurant because of a city mandate will agitate me). Obviously I don't expect people to agree (don't get it twisted everyone should get the vaccine) but I hate that it comes from the governments (to me it will mean a lack of trust and more backlash in the future with mandates) as opposed to individuals implementing their own mandates (have at it like I said).
One in four American adults have yet to receive even one dose of the coronavirus vaccine. To explain the risk they pose to themselves and others, we propose an analogy: The choice to remain unvaccinated is equivalent to driving while intoxicated.
Some might balk at this comparison, but here are the similarities. Both causes of severe bodily harm are largely preventable — covid-19 through vaccination, and drunken driving by not driving after drinking alcohol. Both are individual decisions with societal consequences.
From WaPo, but it's a fair analogy
I agree with this analogy and it’s a much better one than the seat belt or car accidents analogy that anti-vax and anti-government mandates make.
So you're against public school systems mandating vaccines like they have for years?
It's the only way to stop a pandemic, except massive death - so you're in favor of massive death?
Do you extend this to all vaccines?
I think the US has made it plainly clear what happens when a society veers too far towards individualism on the individualism-collectivism spectrum.
For Cugel, sycasey, buckeyebear, berk97, yes we cannon: Upon further review I think the public schools and vaccine mandates with polio, chicken pox, etc are correct I just didn't happen to think that far and that's on me. However I still disagree with the premise that governments should be mandating what businesses do (back to me pulling out a vax card at a restaurant), I just don't think on that front its necessary. And lastly to Cugel's assessment, it sucks for the compromised people who cant get the vaccine, but as for the people who willingly dont get it/ignore it, I just say "too bad so sad", its not my problem. I'm a firm believer in you get what you pay for, and if you choose to ignore science I will not feel a second of guilt for the massive death they caused.
No shoes, no shirt, no sevice. Governments also mandate safe meat handling standards and kitchen cleanliness.
Governments already mandate what businesses do in many ways. Environmental regulations, for example. Do you like pollution? If not, thank the government for regulating that.
I'm all about erring on the side of freedom, but sometimes everyone making their personal choices becomes a huge net negative to society/civilization as a whole and the government has to step in. Maybe vaccine requirements directed at businesses is not the right approach and reasonable people can disagree about the methods. But "governments shouldn't mandate" is not a tenable position. Why else is there a government?
re: "too bad so sad". that would be fine if they existed in a vacuum. the problem is the disruption their illnesses at scale causes to the rest of society, not to mention the fact that they create a medium for virus mutations and given enough time one that is resistant to the current vaccines.
Mandates are for when people in significant quantity have demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to come to a responsible conclusion on their own. I don't think I'm too far out on a limb in stating that we all would prefer fewer mandates would be needed, but increasingly, its been demonstrated that that is not the case. Like it or not, we are all part of a community, and inconvenient as it might be for those who are concerned first and exclusively with personal choice, the consequences of most decisions are not confined to those making them, or even to those in their immediate circle. Others will be affected, and most individuals are not capable of being fully responsible (meaning actually dealing with all the consequences) for their actions, much less willing to be. So the community, via the organizational tool we call a government (better than an armed mob that used to do it) has to intervene when the group's interests are adversely impacted.
I agree with that it’s too bad, so sad choose not to get the vaccine and end up getting Covid. However, it still impacts society as a whole. Even people who are vaccinated can still catch Covid and while they may not die, it can still make them sick enough to miss work. Most restaurant and hospitality workers do not get sick or vacation time so if they miss work, they are missing out on money that they need to buy food and pay their bills.
Sometimes it isn’t always about dying.
True, thats just something im not used to yet and something ill learn over time in regards to those who have to miss work while being vaccinated. However Im not there yet and am so far at the too bad so sad stage of this.
Also, the continued spread allows for new variants, that may be even worse than Delta. It isn't a personal choice.
i think that many would not say "too far".
in fact, 50%-ish of the country probably would protect that individualism at any cost
after all, we are a country that worships people like Rambo, Maverick (Top Gun), etc etc. everyone wants their startup to be disruptor
Back in the day, I was surprised, and pleased, that seat belt mandates caught on and have worked out very well.
As a follow-on comment, I am a reflexive seat belt wearer. I don't even turn the key in the ignition until I've buckled up. It's almost like breathing with me. It became a thing when Mrs Slug was pregnant with our first child.
"Put your seatbelt on, boy. I don't drive with nobody who don't wear their seatbelt. It's one of my rules"
Who knows which brand of beer said that to Emilio Estévez?
I don't think wiata78 is talking about manufacturer mandates. I think he's referring to vehicle operator and passenger mandates to use seat belts.
In California, failure to wear a seat belt was originally a secondary violation; that is, a vehicle couldn't be stopped because someone in the vehicle was observed not wearing a seat belt. Sometime in the late 90s/early 00s it became a primary violation: you could be stopped if you were observed not wearing a seat belt.
Right, FS. I knew plenty of people, of various political bents, who felt that seat belt wearing should be a personal choice. I was one of them! But as a practical matter, it seemed that if you had a law, then you could just say "it's the law" even if your macho friends said that wearing a seatbelt was chicken.
Macho? To me there are two types of people that always wear seat belts, those that care about safety (and the law) and those who drive fast.
Now that you mention it, I remember conversations about seat belts with people I knew, too. I was in favor of cutting down traffic deaths, so wearing a seat belt was an easy ask.
I understood the macho argument about seat belts then as being about defiance. The anti-vaxxer argument today is the same thing, only re-stated.
A more apt analogy might be drinking and driving. If I drink and drive, I not only endanger myself, but also other people on the road.
Exactly. If I could quarantine those clowns until they were vaccinated, I would.
19, still advancing, my line of thought resides more in the way long term vs now and how we can save lives. We've seen how many people protest for the smallest things I just don't want it to blow up and get set off because we know tension is there while I'm alive
I don't believe in life after love
News flash...life goes on.
But what if you turn back time?
I would tell myself to put like 15k into bitcoin in 2010.
I see what you did there....
Our Crumbling World
GOP: I can't believe Biden left all those Afghan refugees to die.
Also GOP: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-afghanistan-immigration-taliban-ac6dbd381ff5e6e64f921e1e64f53444
I think that's a loser political attack.
Elder (recall) gets its ass kicked by 2:1 margin.
I realize it's moot, but will they release the results of the vote for the replacement had the vote on the recall been in favor? Or did they not even tabulate it? I'm just curious how the ranking of the potential replacements fell out.
Elder, 40%
Yes, the results are out. Elder got the largest plurality by far.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/14/us/elections/results-california-recall.html
This is great news for Democrats in California going forward.
Bad news for the GQP if they ever want to win statewide office again.
Terrible news for society.
Good. It's a shame the state will have to foot the $300m bill for this desperate attempt by the GOP.
Should have built a rickety but beloved stadium on a fault line instead.
The California legislature should make one common sense change that will discourage future political power grabs through the recall process - designate the Lieutenant Governor as the Governor's successor in the event of recall.
Then you don't have a second part of the ballot and you don't have candidates like Larry Elder or other tinfoil hat /vanity candidates making a mockery of the process.
Yup, I've been wondering about that for awhile. What's the point of the Lt Gov? (Actually, what *is* the point?)
Maybe we should have it be like Pres/Vice President, where they run as a team, so you don't get Elder winning Lt Gov and the the GOP doing a recall?
I strongly agree with this.
Agreed. The recall process is an important tool in the event someone truly does not represent the electorate. But it is NOT a substitute for the normal elective process, and there is an order of succession for a number of reasons. The California 2-part process that is both a recall and an extra elective process is unlike any I've encountered elsewhere.
Limiting the potential successor to the Lieutenant Governor also means that there will be no recall absent dereliction of duty or outright incompetence. Voters will not overturn the prior election on a whim. And gathering signatures would be more difficult if people know that the likely outcome means that there is a known successor, especially if it's someone from the same political party.
is that what the number are? That's great. I saw 538, I think it was, showed it something like 57-41 but I took that with a grain of salt given 2016 and assumed the worst.
538 has lost its shine for me since Nate Silver tried to tell the world he was oh-so-much-more-clever than trained epidemiologist. Separately, I sometimes get Nate Silver and Mike Silver confused.
Silver is fine and people get way too overheated about his COVID opinions.
Silver is rapidly burying his reputation built on statistical modeling success with second-rate punditry (inclusive but not limited to COVID).
I saw a Twitter prompt - has anyone built more out of getting one thing completely correct than Nate Silver?
Oh, there are others.
I've been following him this whole time and I don't see it. He sometimes says things that are controversial among his left-leaning followers but usually at least backs it up with some data.
My take is that a lot of people don't like having their prior assumptions challenged by the "data guy."
He's a data guy, but he doesn't understand how data works in different fields. I have less and less patience for overconfident white guys.
Ah, the "overconfident white guy" meme. Okay.
counterpoint: he'd be bad at epidemiology no matter what ethnicity he was. Sometimes there's no substitute for understanding what you're talking about. I've found that a good source for different thinking about the pandemic from someone who knows the underlying subject is Scott Gottlieb.
I'll check out Gottlieb.
I'm not trying to claim that Silver is any kind of expert on COVID. But if you add up all of his actual positions on the matter, they seem pretty middle-of-the-road to me. Nothing super objectionable. People get really mad at him on Twitter, though.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1435710676383711233
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1437990179852091392
Acyn
@Acyn
Newsom: No was not the only thing that was expressed tonight. I want to focus on what we said yes to as a state. We said yes to science. We said yes to vaccines. We said yes to ending this pandemic…
2:1? That's Elder abuse.
Eh. Beaten to the punch.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1437990316737323008
Even Andrew Cuomo can't believe the damage
solid
Very gratifying. Newsom can use this as a platform to get into national politics, which I think is his long term goal. I think given the circumstances of Covid, he has done a good job.
A bigger slaughter than I thought it would be. However just from my view i'm ready to get him out in '22 with another Dem, Newsom has been mediocre at best.
The power of incumbency is far too great for a governor to face a legitimate primary. The only time that wouldn't be true is when a Lt Gov ascends to the office having not won it her/himself in an election.
This take fascinates me. What specifically would you have preferred he had done rather than what he has?
First off, French Laundry. Can't have that, I don't care how much they tried to dance around it, that will never fly with me. 2nd of all, 3 sets of California stim checks were announced, not one came to my family's bank account/house. 3rd, the tiered system was an actual mess (although different since we have the vaccine now) since we basically carry slightly less numbers. 4th is just general inconsistencies (for example being proactive in climate change but not doing any executive orders that could've helped fire season, seems like all bark no bite to me.)
I feel that while climate change and wild fires are connected, the solutions are very different. Climate change will require large systemic solutions that will take both years to implement and probably decades before we see any results.
Wild fire is different. You will never stop wildfires from happening, the only thing you can do it try to mitigate their damage and intensity. The only way to really prevent mega wildfires is through forest management but jurisdiction and ownerships of land, state, federal, county and private makes it difficult to manage. Forest management would mean removing dead plants and removing invasive/non native plants, which isn’t controversial but it is expensive. It gets controversial (and still expensive) when removing and thinning dense vegetation because that would mean removing living plants and trees, which a lot of homeowners and even environmentalist would resist.
Also, W/R/T wildfire, the reason the Caldor fire didn't become another Dixie fire is because of all the forest management done in that area in the last three years. They had cleared out a ton of brush and done a lot of thinning in the forest, which didn't allow it to become a megafire that burned so hot its march could not be stopped. Do we need more? Sure, but someone (I don't know who but it's been recent) has done some effective work getting the USFS to start doing their fucking jobs re: forest management.
All the IOUs, plus arsonist, and lightning strikes during summer.
Do not take this the wrong way or take it now you feel but this comes off as the opinions of 19 year old without a lot of life experience.
Besides the French Laundry dinner, what do you think any governor could or should do for points 3 and 4.
I assume for number 2, your family didn’t qualify for a stimulus check due to income requirements and not simply because Newsom didn’t want to send one to your family.
There was a way to check if each person qualified for the stimulus check. I think it was by income so it's entirely possible they made too much to get the money. I think it's prorated by income to 75K max.
My family qualified with flying colors (i.e not even close to the limit) for each of the 3 checks only for none of them to come and that really pissed me off. #3 is probably more of a personal grievance while #4 is telling them to get a backbone because a 2 party agreement bill seems to be dying by the day in CA and Washington.
Did you or anyone in your family contact someone from the State to ask why they didn’t get one? If they qualify they should receive a check and if they haven’t do to some error it should be correctable.
Which Dem would that be? Because no one is tearing it up so that Newsom should be shaking in his boots.
Don't be fooled: we're in the midst of a generational change in politics, nationally and in California. It just might take another 10 years to play out.
If SoCal Democrats could ever get their shit together, set aside their differences and coalesce around one candidate I could see a SoCal Dem challenging Newsom but that probably won’t happen.
I agree that no one is tearing it up but I like Kevin Mullin's authentic feel and all around ability to be relatable in doing small things like going to baseball games in small towns or being in the rafters at a basketball game.
Whew...I wrote a long response to your "I have to show a vax card, so I no like mandates" posts, but then deleted it since it woulda come across as too harsh. But then I come down here and see more 19-yo hot takes.
We don't need our politicians to be our buddies (hanging out at ball games). We got W because "I could have a beer with him". I want smart people. If they are relatable, that's a bonus. Clinton had it; Obama sometimes; Kerry and Gore...well, let's not go there.
Newsom isn't my favorite person. Rather silver-spoony and entitled. But he's wonky and tries. "Trying to keep Californians safe from COVID" – better than pretty much any other state – is worth 1000 points in my book. And if "hypocritical dinner at French Laundry" is the worst you've seen a politician do, well then consider yourself lucky. Or young.
"if you ever meet me you'll quickly find out I run my mouth at the slightest things that inconvenience me"
You might want to work on that. Especially when you're in a room with old people...and seemingly want to sell them knives ;-) [I think that's you?]
In what sense generational change? (I don't disagree, just curious about what you mean)
The focus of what passes for security and fiscal issues is shifting below our feet. It used to be that security was primarily concerned with military might and response. Now, I think it includes environmental issues the most obvious being climate change. Terrorism has also changed the issue of security in that it is intertwined with environmental issues and also touches upon how we treat others who do not live in the US and consequently, how they view the US. And yet, we spent military resources combating terrorism overseas, so there's an acknowledgement that security is still an issue that includes the military.
On fiscal issues the driver is wealth inequity and inequality. That's far different from how Boomers have viewed the fiscal landscape that is/was focused on what happens to one's personal pocketbook. Millenials acknowledge that fiscal health is much broader than what happens at home or in one's communitiy. There are national forces at work that and has much broader implications that touch on social justice.
I see the focus being much broader than what it has been in the past. And while there will always be social conservatives (folks with retrograde views of social mores) and bigots, I feel Millenials have a much greater willingness to engage social issues and challenge the old tired concepts of race and what had passed for "normal". I really feel that Millenials will make serious dents in the old tired walls that keep the United States from becoming a more perfect Union.
Today in Covid 19
Pro
A’s blow 6-run lead, again
https://www.athleticsnation.com/2021/9/14/22675030/oakland-as-game-144-kansas-city-royals-score-result
Ugh. To maintain a semblance equanimity, I dropped watching the A's & following AN regularly three weeks or so ago. With the Bear's start, sans the A's , I reduced the aggravation factor.
Sigh....they really have to step up their game with a handful of contests left. They have to win the series against the Mariners and Astros to get a shot at the second wildcard.
Dodgers get win over Diamondbacks, just as expected
LA clinches a 9th straight postseason berth
https://www.truebluela.com/2021/9/14/22674711/dodgers-win-diamondbacks-norm
Giants win ninth straight, take down the Padres 6-1
https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2021/9/14/22674920/mlb-scores-recap-san-francisco-giants-san-diego-padres-anthony-desclafani-buster-posey
The Giants have accumulated enough talent that they can usually win despite Gabe's usual supply of inexplicable moves with the lineup.
Other College
Guess what, Cal is not in the Bottom 25!
College football rankings: Let's welcome Florida State and Kansas back to The Bottom 25
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-rankings-lets-welcome-florida-state-and-kansas-back-to-the-bottom-25/
No real reason to have Cal there. As depressing as it was for us, we lost two close games to decent teams.
...and we looked crappy losing both games.
A very unsatisfied customer. If Cal Athletics wants me to buy a ticket to a game at Cal Memorial, two things must happen - (1) the pandemic had better get under control and (2) the football team is going to have to perform much better than it has. That team is backsliding, regressing, into Tom Holmoe/Joe Kapp territory.
Not good.
I don't understand how there's no vaccine mandate at Memorial. Anyone know what the thinking is there?
There is! If you're the Clubs, got an email this week.
It isn’t like Cal was filling Memorial before Covid. Low fan turnout in recent years, plus odd year schedule, plus 0-2 start equals plenty of room for social distancing?
I agree with both of prerequisites for buying and attending a Cal game this season.
I also agree that we are regressing.
Not saying I'm happy with it, just that if you're looking at it from the outside, single-digit losses to Nevada and TCU don't look terrible enough to put a team in the Bottom 10.
regressing, into Tom Holmoe/Joe Kapp territory... That's just silly.
Are people starting to romanticize the Tom Holmoe era? We haven't even begun to approach that level of ineptitude.
I don’t think we are romanticizing Holmoe as much as we are worried about the trajectory of Wilcox pointing towards Holmoe rather than Tedford.
Cal would have to lose their next eight games to match the disaster that was Holmoe's fifth year. It's a silly comparison.
OK, but I wouldn't put his 1st, 2nd, 3rd (hopefully minus the cheating) or 4th years out of reach...
Hold My Beer...
It looks and feels like Holmoe all over again. Holmoe and Wilcox were both DCs and have teams where the more reliable and stronger unit is defense and offenses that struggle to consistently score or move the ball.
No it's not.
Let me know when Cal has 4 wins in the Pac-12. After losing to Nevada and TCU and looking bad doing it, I'm not sure there are 4 wins on the Pac-12 schedule.
I still think 5 wins looks feasible based on the weakness of some opponents and the wackiness of the conference. I bet we win:
3 from UW, OSU, WSU, Arizona
2 from LSJU, USC, Colorado, Oregon, UCLA
(I could even entertain arguments that we could win 3 in the latter group)
5 conference wins plus Sac State would equal 6 and may get us a bowl chance, though we would probably have to finish 7-5 to be sure about it. GO BEARS!
I think you're overly optimistic.
First group - Cal loses to UW and Arizona. Historically, Cal has a tough time with both teams. 2 wins max (OSU and Wazzu).
Second group - Cal doesn't beat LSJU or Oregon or UCLA. All three of those teams are too good. Colorado is a possible victory but only because Karl Dorrell is coaching them. USC will beat us because they've fired Clay Helton.
Right now, I see only three likely wins. As I said before, regression.
the same UW that lost to Montana?
Plus that Colorado defense looks legit.
That does not compute.
You think Cal can win 4 games in Pac-12 play this season?
Name those games.
For the life of me, I can't see where any loses could come from
For some reason UW moved out of the bottom 25...
Luke Fickell says he's not interested in USC job
https://www.wlwt.com/article/luke-fickell-shuts-down-usc-rumors-grass-is-not-always-greener/37597603#
Urban Meyer is also uninterested
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/09/15/urban-meyer-says-theres-no-chance-hell-be-the-head-coach-at-usc/
There's plenty of time for things to change in the next four months, but it's nice to see some big names coming out with an immediate "nuh-uh"
Let’s see how he feels when it’s December and his team is 1-11.
this is good news IMO. I don't want that guy anywhere near the program.
My college. 48 hours to move in day. Jesus Christ.
Good luck!
Nice! I’ll say a prayer that you get a cool roommate!
Good Luck. No 3's time slot is around Fri at 2:50.
Friday, 10:30 AM for me.
Good luck.
Cal
If the D continues to tackle the way they have in weeks 1 & 2, this game could be a N. Texas-like dog fight
I decided to trust that Wilcox and co. can fix the tackling issue.
Feels like tackling has been an issue in the last 6 games we played.
Now that he has brought it up in the presser I guess he is kind of saying he owns it.
Go Bears!!!
Sac State predictions
don't forget to factor in the first half point-chasing
Ouch
37 - 20
@which team has 37?@
I hope Cal does. 5 TD + 1 FG - 1 XP
2700. This is my over/under on times that "Troy Taylor" is mentioned.
You know who will be responsible for about 2,500 of those mentions.
Sike - they're all just wikipedia links.
It will be a mix of Troy Taylor and Shaw mentions
more like 2690 or more.
Chicken and waffles at the tailgate. Come through
I may be a few months late.
Tell your s/o that I may have found a tailgate vendor for South Bend.
Will do. She also found someone to do in home catering.
24-17, Cal.
I have little confidence in the offense. The defense has been sloppy enough that I think this game will be closer than it should be.
I'm in full pessimism mode for the Wilcox era.
This is where I’m at as well. We will win but it be closer and uglier than it should be.
27-10
We never seem to be able to put FCS teams away comfortably under Wilcox.
We never have put any teams away other than OSU that one year, 45-7 or something like that.
Also, if we get to see the backup QB I predict that any future calls for Garbers to be replaced will be silenced.
I feel the opposite way. I think the backup will look fine against Sac State. For that reason, I don’t see Wilcox putting in the backup because they don’t want any controversy.
This season Chase's back-up might be the worst option it's been since his freshman year
Ryan Glover is statistically similar to Zach Maynard
Well, if Glover plays the game will probably be well in hand (let's hope).
Pain.
38-7 Cal
35-17 Cal.
Write on...
It is exceptional, just not in the way that people normally people think that it is.
eh, I'd say it's exceptional in various, but not necessarily good ways.