And p.s. Yeah, ALL the Pilgrims were horrible people. Slavery existed all over the world, so it's not surprising it came here, too, and WE ended it. Our forefathers anticipated the end of it, if yo u don't think so read John Adams' tirades against it and the way they worded the constitution. John Adams is my cousin, both descended from Henry Adams of Braintree -- and he paid them and taught them and railed against it constantly on the senate floor. Washington and Jefferson made changes in the right direction. And just where were these wonderful people, the inherently wonderful ones? Just where did they come from? Indigenous Native Americans were violent as could be. Killed each other with abandon and owned slaves. Just where are these oh so wonderful people who were inherently good and never had to evolve into decent people? Give it a rest. So America is just so so. Whatever. NO people are great. They have all head to evolve and we did better than most. Too bad you can't be more thanksful for things.
Wow- paid my 50 bucks and am treated to a truly low rent rant about the Detroit Lions and the Pilgrims? With all that's going on and we're served up such irrelevance?
Paid up by the year. Getting some rants in. Getting my money's worth. Basic capitalism.
My concern is whether or not Matt can follow up on the potential I thought I saw and which led me to subscribe. But he seems to have fallen for so many of the "woke" paradigms. So much so that I am having trouble seeing a truly contrarian and open minded writer. Disappointed? Yeah, you might say that. He can do better, a lot better.
On the contrary, Matt is one of the few journalists who's been critical of the "wokeness" movement - outspokenly so at great professional and personal risk. Given that Matt has spent years of his life researching racial injustice in the criminal-justice system (cf. "The Divide" and "I Can't Breathe") but isn't totally "woke," so to speak, is significant. His example showed me that it was possible to protest "systemic racism" in policing and elsewhere without subscribing to a deterministic/dialectical theory of racial conflict.
I don't know. Writing about systemic racism in policing is necessary but grabbing hold of an example in Iowa is not going to ultimately make a difference. He will have to go after bigger fish and far deeper into the overall corruption that guides how this country does business.
C Johnstone does a stellar (and far better job than Matt) of getting down to the core of the issue. One example: how can we treat people here in the US with dignity and respect if we are going all over the world wreaking havoc on other peoples and cultures? We can't. We can't be murderous out there and somehow be virtuous here. It doesn't work that way. Matt does grasp concepts such as the sanctity of the First Amendment but, as an example, strangely doesn't think Trump should be afforded that right. The media coverage though the last 4 years has been 99% anti Trump with virtually no balance to the whole process. Did Matt call that out? If he did I didn't see it. And don't give me that nonsense about Fox looking our for him. Fox is the original propaganda outlet and only gave Trump a platform when he was (reluctantly) doing their bidding and therefore useful to them. No, Matt was simply relieved to see Trump ousted, fairness be damned.
Come on Matt, call that shit out and I'll know we are getting somewhere.
I disagree. I think that particular examples can make the point about what systemic racism is the way that a general argument like cannot. The same people who are pissed off when they hear about “The 1619 Project” claiming that America is defined by white racial hatred of blacks (which is indeed a bad argument) will have a totally different reaction to a specific story like this one. I know this because I’ve been that guy.
You seem a thoughtful person so all I'd do here is suggest you try looking at the solutions as being far deeper than you have in the past. Honestly, Caitlin Johnstone generally nails it, IMO. Maybe check out her stuff.
Matt T a conservative? OK, hold on a second..do you have any idea of what a "conservative" used to stand for? I have no idea what your current definition is. But back in the day, you know, back when we only had 2 genders and terms were not so fluid, a conservative was someone who staunchly defended the status quo. Taking that definition, just who is supporting foreign wars, locking up black men, increasing surveillance, choosing the insurance industry over healthcare? Who carries water for the MIC, CIA, FBI, Wall Street and the banks? Who does the thoroughly compromised and complicit legacy media support and assist? Let's see; the Clintons, the Bushes, B Obama, Biden (and his entire cabinet)- you get the idea. And who IS NOT conservative by that definition? Try Sanders, Ron Paul, Trump, Gabbard.
In fact, you really only need look at who is supported by the media. Those are your enemies.
Matt T is not conservative and only a fool would take him for one. My gripe with Matt is that he is not going after the pervasive rot as he should. Perhaps he peered over the edge and saw what happens to those not on board with the "agenda". Maybe he is deciding right now how to continue to write in this environment. He's seen enough good people get cancelled, some even ruined. He certainly doesn't want to be a casualty.
Useful Idiots- sounds like a punk rock band....are they? Or am I missing something? Been following Matt since he come on to the scene with the Goldman Sachs articles
Cheap shots like Matt's are the mark of a panderer.
In your world, here's how it goes: "OK kids, it's Thanksgiving dinner but before we start in, let's have everyone say what they are thankful for. Little Johnny, you go first.
"What am I thankful for? Well, it would have to be the Pilgrims. And anybody who doesn't think so is dangerously anti-American and, in 2020, will be considered contrarian".
Not one in 10,000 Americans knows anything about the Pilgrims, much less celebrates them, Matt T included. By the way, What does the OG mean?
Then, do the Pilgrims have anything to do with it? I don't see it- I think bringing that group in was a cheap shot and did nothing to properly set the context of his article.
Other than that, we are in agreement regards his overall effort and his past is why I invested my 50 bucks- not just to have subscriber privileges but also to encourage him on what I thought to be his mission. But I find him slipping and not keeping up the straight line standards that will be essential to his success. Start pandering, give breaks to powerful people or institutions, get PC and he will lose his way. I find Matt with promise and potential but he insists on wandering the wilderness and recently has back slid.
Just my .02 worth and by the way, any talk of Pilgrims ended for me around 4th grade (1964) and even then, they weren't exactly seen as stable. I think my experience was pretty standard in that regard. No, bringing up the Pilgrims was a cheap shot of no meaning, importance or context
Such defensiveness....Matt's a big boy and I doubt he needs to hide behind your skirts. Nonetheless, glad I could get a rise out of you boys. Your self righteous indignation, being your forte, makes it easy.
Sorry, humor has been cancelled until further notice. We must be on our stuffiest, angriest, most furrow brow-ed internet behavior until we solve all the world's political issues of the day from our keyboards.
I finally have my answer to the burning question from one of Matt's progenitors: Where were you when the fun stopped?
For laughs, I watch Monte Python, the Marx Brothers and Seinfeld reruns. And don't forget the comedy gold of watching your average wokester trying to figure out reality.
I don't look to journalists for that. Matt T does do better than many, but it's a pretty low bar. At any rate, let him express his humor while getting high with his friends- he'd probably be a hoot.
Clarifying the history a little bit...the complement of truth being clarity and all.... The Puritans fled England and the Church to take refuge in the Netherlands, where religious tolerance was, more or less for the time, quite enlightened and accepting of alternate religions. The locals called them Puritans as an epithet, making fun of them because they thought they were more pure than anyone else. They did not flee religious intolerance as much as they wanted to get someplace where they could exercise their particularly intolerant and retentive ideas about their religion. IOW, America was founded by a strange religious cult, intent on forcing their brand of the Almighty down everyone’s throat. And, they still working on it.
Their faith in the Almighty led them to trust the individual,inspired by the Almighty, to take personal responsibility and profit from their own labor and reject the collectivism which they had originally deemed as "fair".
This led their colony to be more prosperous than they even imagined and it led to new settlers flocking to their colony to take advantage of the prosperity founded by their faith.
Ah yes, Edmund S. Morgan. The authority on the Puritans. Interesting note in the Wikipedia entry for John Winthrop (early ruler of Salem colony), "they also practiced a policy that historian Alfred Cave calls vacuum domicilium: if land is not under some sort of active use, it is free for the taking. This meant that lands could be claimed which were only used seasonally by the Indians (e.g., for fishing or hunting) and were empty otherwise. According to Alfred Cave, Winthrop claimed that the rights of "more advanced" peoples superseded the rights of the Indians."
The theory, which is being applied also in a small middle eastern area, is that the Indians were illegal immigrants to America, and illegal squatters on land that God had reserved since creation for the rightful owners, his righteous people. Manifest destiny and convenant, and all that.
That’s a theory (with resulting atrocities) that was widely practiced throughout the settling of this continent. God had anointed them as the truly deserving, so they could take whatever they wanted, and God was glad for it. 😖
Sort of. An enlightenment vignette is useful for understanding. I think that small group of the Founders were not the crazy ones. They were the ones that understood one had to accommodate the crazy folks if they wanted to succeed in the political structuring of this country. Reading quotes and statements by Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others, they weren’t disbelievers, but they held it as arms length with some small amount of gentle disdain.
Oh now, it's just a word. But hey, here's a pointless story. In a former life I worked with mules. Later, I was supervising a fire crew and we were doing project work near a corral and 2 mules walked over to examine us. I gave the crew a break and while resting up, I offered a deal to the crew: you guys can take the rest of the day off if you can tell me who is the smarter- you or those mules. A bunch of glances exchanged amongst themselves and the answer- we are, of course! I let out a big guffaw- no you dumb bastards- they are smarter than you! There's no question about it now get back to work! And I busted their asses the rest of the day.
"I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it."
Lots of good replies regards those pesky Puritans. Too bad Matt just wants to regurgitate the tired old cliches full of "woke" and devoid of any real knowledge or research.
The best way to follow sports? Record it, check the score, and if it looks good, watch the highlights. You can ruin an entire day watching live. And you can't get that 3.5 hours of life back. It's gone, forever. At least until the next Einstein invents the wayback machine.
THAT is why I consider the 1990 Giants to be the best team in the history of the sport.
I deal with a lot of foreigners and they have trouble understanding football, because when other people try to explain football to them, they get bogged down in strategy and lose them quickly.
I explain it this way.
A) you have the ball
B) you have four tries - called "downs" - to move the ball ten yards down the field.
C) if you do, you get four more tries.. If you don't, the other team gets the ball.
That's it.
The OBJECT of football is to move the ball ten yards in four tries or less.
That's it.
And that's how the 1990 Giants played the game.
They didn't a lot of points because they just couldn't push it into the end zone, but the other team didn't get a lot of chances to score either.
They went down to the Stadium Formerly Known As Joe Robbie and played the Dolphins and Dan Marino had EXACTLY three snaps from center in the first quarter.
They played a prime-time Monday Night Football game (I believe against the Lions) and I swear the closing credits were rolling two and a half hours after kick off.
My kids recite Monte Python routines. I stopped the TV stuff in 1980. My wife found an old B&W in a Forest Service dumpster, kept it in the house but finally put a .45 slug into it on Super Bowl Sunday, 2004. My kind of woman.
I was a kid there in the 50’s and 60’s. Downtown at Christmas to see Santa Claus at Hudsons, windows all decorated, the entirety of Woodward Ave. showing decorations and lights, the train station full of commuters, the Ford Rotunda....then.....city wide collapse as the 60’s closed. I had a summer gig dismantling auto factories in the mid 70’s, when it was descending into dystopia. It was frightening to watch.
If you ride down Hamilton (adjacent to Woodward) through Detroit, you'll notice homes being bull dozed by the hundreds, mostly on the west side. Last counting, there were approximately 80,000+ homes that needed to be razed (abandoned, fire hazards, crack houses etc etc). It's trying to make a comeback.
That ended because in the 1970s the ruling elites of the "anglo american" countries got fed up with the worker unions (but see below for some speculation as to why) and in the 1980s with Reagan and Thatcher they decided to use a scorched earth tactic (in traditional terminology "reducing the enemy") against industries and regions "infected" by worker unions.
Consultants specializing in strategies and tactics against worker unions told the owner elites that high-capital intensity, vertically integrated industries like car-making are the most easily "infected" by worker unions, because the workforce is concentrated in a few locations, and the high value of the plants means that strikes make a lot of capital fallow, so they are effective.
Therefore the owner elites decided to disperse high capital intensity industries offshore, in many smaller plants, and in countries like China where authoritarian governments make "unapproved" worker unions and strikes almost impossible.
That resulted in the USA mid-west rust belt, and in the UK north rust belt, and the near disappearance of worker unions from private companies.
«in the 1970s the ruling elites of the "anglo american" countries got fed up with the worker unions (but see below for some speculation as to why)»
There are many reasons, among that (some of) the worker unions had become wreckers, and that WW2 was old enough that the shared experiences of the elites and workers during fighting had faded.
But I suspect that the main reason is that the elites realized that there was no realistic successor to oil as the cause of productivity increases, that peak oil had happened or was happening in the USA, and therefore the future was zero sum, and more wealth for the elites therefore could only be gained at the expense of workers.
New Fords are really good; have driven many over the past few years. Got a sweet deal on a 2019 F-150 a few months back; they wanna move those babies off the lot. I don't own stock! Not a paid endorsement!
The Taliban were the sons of the muhajadeed who stayed behind with the noses in the Koran while their daddies were off fighting the godless Soviets. The Taliban were a bunch of egghead bookworms who that they were qualified to tell everyone else how to run their lives
Thus the Anglo-saxon Taliban would be the faculty of Harvard. Elizabeth Warren, Austin Goolsby, Richard Summers, i.e. the previous administration.
Jesus, Matt! I think you're being a bit unfair to... well, everyone. Either you really need a drink, or you've had one too many. Would it help you to feel better if I sent you a picture of a puppy? With a hat on? : )
For those who are interested, "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer is an interesting social history of the very different British cultures which colonized different regions of North America. There was "East Anglia to Massachusetts," of course (and as Matt shows, these Puritans were a sort of "Anglo-Saxon Taliban"), but there was also "South of England to Virginia" (the Cavaliers and their indentured servants), "North Midlands to the Delaware Valley" (the Quakers), and "Borderlands to Backcountry" (the Scotch-Irish). The latter three groups were well aware that the Puritans were "horrible people."
Why do I read the comments? I’d like the last 5 minutes back. (This is a rhetorical question containing a comment about a comments, like an Escher drawing on fire. Let your analysis be for you.)
And p.s. Yeah, ALL the Pilgrims were horrible people. Slavery existed all over the world, so it's not surprising it came here, too, and WE ended it. Our forefathers anticipated the end of it, if yo u don't think so read John Adams' tirades against it and the way they worded the constitution. John Adams is my cousin, both descended from Henry Adams of Braintree -- and he paid them and taught them and railed against it constantly on the senate floor. Washington and Jefferson made changes in the right direction. And just where were these wonderful people, the inherently wonderful ones? Just where did they come from? Indigenous Native Americans were violent as could be. Killed each other with abandon and owned slaves. Just where are these oh so wonderful people who were inherently good and never had to evolve into decent people? Give it a rest. So America is just so so. Whatever. NO people are great. They have all head to evolve and we did better than most. Too bad you can't be more thanksful for things.
Sorry for typos. Had and thankful.
Don’t you know It’s quite fashionable to attack anything that originated in Europe. It’s like wearing skinny jeans.
Hey, buzz off, Matt. The Lions have won 6 out of the last 10 Thanksgiving games, two of them against the Packers. One against the Patriots.
And Dallas didn't do all that great yesterday, either.
Wow- paid my 50 bucks and am treated to a truly low rent rant about the Detroit Lions and the Pilgrims? With all that's going on and we're served up such irrelevance?
If you don't think you're getting value for money, unsubscribe. Basic capitalism.
Paid up by the year. Getting some rants in. Getting my money's worth. Basic capitalism.
My concern is whether or not Matt can follow up on the potential I thought I saw and which led me to subscribe. But he seems to have fallen for so many of the "woke" paradigms. So much so that I am having trouble seeing a truly contrarian and open minded writer. Disappointed? Yeah, you might say that. He can do better, a lot better.
On the contrary, Matt is one of the few journalists who's been critical of the "wokeness" movement - outspokenly so at great professional and personal risk. Given that Matt has spent years of his life researching racial injustice in the criminal-justice system (cf. "The Divide" and "I Can't Breathe") but isn't totally "woke," so to speak, is significant. His example showed me that it was possible to protest "systemic racism" in policing and elsewhere without subscribing to a deterministic/dialectical theory of racial conflict.
I don't know. Writing about systemic racism in policing is necessary but grabbing hold of an example in Iowa is not going to ultimately make a difference. He will have to go after bigger fish and far deeper into the overall corruption that guides how this country does business.
C Johnstone does a stellar (and far better job than Matt) of getting down to the core of the issue. One example: how can we treat people here in the US with dignity and respect if we are going all over the world wreaking havoc on other peoples and cultures? We can't. We can't be murderous out there and somehow be virtuous here. It doesn't work that way. Matt does grasp concepts such as the sanctity of the First Amendment but, as an example, strangely doesn't think Trump should be afforded that right. The media coverage though the last 4 years has been 99% anti Trump with virtually no balance to the whole process. Did Matt call that out? If he did I didn't see it. And don't give me that nonsense about Fox looking our for him. Fox is the original propaganda outlet and only gave Trump a platform when he was (reluctantly) doing their bidding and therefore useful to them. No, Matt was simply relieved to see Trump ousted, fairness be damned.
Come on Matt, call that shit out and I'll know we are getting somewhere.
I disagree. I think that particular examples can make the point about what systemic racism is the way that a general argument like cannot. The same people who are pissed off when they hear about “The 1619 Project” claiming that America is defined by white racial hatred of blacks (which is indeed a bad argument) will have a totally different reaction to a specific story like this one. I know this because I’ve been that guy.
You seem a thoughtful person so all I'd do here is suggest you try looking at the solutions as being far deeper than you have in the past. Honestly, Caitlin Johnstone generally nails it, IMO. Maybe check out her stuff.
You're mad because you're seeing that he's not actually the conservative you thought he was. Don't let the door hitcha where the good Lord splitcha.
Matt T a conservative? OK, hold on a second..do you have any idea of what a "conservative" used to stand for? I have no idea what your current definition is. But back in the day, you know, back when we only had 2 genders and terms were not so fluid, a conservative was someone who staunchly defended the status quo. Taking that definition, just who is supporting foreign wars, locking up black men, increasing surveillance, choosing the insurance industry over healthcare? Who carries water for the MIC, CIA, FBI, Wall Street and the banks? Who does the thoroughly compromised and complicit legacy media support and assist? Let's see; the Clintons, the Bushes, B Obama, Biden (and his entire cabinet)- you get the idea. And who IS NOT conservative by that definition? Try Sanders, Ron Paul, Trump, Gabbard.
In fact, you really only need look at who is supported by the media. Those are your enemies.
Matt T is not conservative and only a fool would take him for one. My gripe with Matt is that he is not going after the pervasive rot as he should. Perhaps he peered over the edge and saw what happens to those not on board with the "agenda". Maybe he is deciding right now how to continue to write in this environment. He's seen enough good people get cancelled, some even ruined. He certainly doesn't want to be a casualty.
mule, how long have you been following matt? do you also listen to Useful Idiots?
Useful Idiots- sounds like a punk rock band....are they? Or am I missing something? Been following Matt since he come on to the scene with the Goldman Sachs articles
Sorry, where did I say he was a conservative?
He should tackle this:
https://www.scribd.com/document/486105599/Affidavit-of-Dr-Navid-Keshavarz-Nia-Phd?fbclid=IwAR1ic0xXjjtsyLLvlfNLsaw78U6nJQ_BVM9vx5XXeGM3gGbzZ2qAblc2Hrw#fullscreen&from_embed
Cheap shots like Matt's are the mark of a panderer.
In your world, here's how it goes: "OK kids, it's Thanksgiving dinner but before we start in, let's have everyone say what they are thankful for. Little Johnny, you go first.
"What am I thankful for? Well, it would have to be the Pilgrims. And anybody who doesn't think so is dangerously anti-American and, in 2020, will be considered contrarian".
Not one in 10,000 Americans knows anything about the Pilgrims, much less celebrates them, Matt T included. By the way, What does the OG mean?
Then, do the Pilgrims have anything to do with it? I don't see it- I think bringing that group in was a cheap shot and did nothing to properly set the context of his article.
Other than that, we are in agreement regards his overall effort and his past is why I invested my 50 bucks- not just to have subscriber privileges but also to encourage him on what I thought to be his mission. But I find him slipping and not keeping up the straight line standards that will be essential to his success. Start pandering, give breaks to powerful people or institutions, get PC and he will lose his way. I find Matt with promise and potential but he insists on wandering the wilderness and recently has back slid.
Just my .02 worth and by the way, any talk of Pilgrims ended for me around 4th grade (1964) and even then, they weren't exactly seen as stable. I think my experience was pretty standard in that regard. No, bringing up the Pilgrims was a cheap shot of no meaning, importance or context
Well, there was the entire other piece about the Iowa judicial system and running governments as revenue streams....which was pretty good.
Fair enough. Predation needs to be called out. Better yet, avoid being poor if at all possible.
I appreciate the humor and his writing. And he speaks the truth about the Lions.
Yeah, I mean, this is literally the only thing that Matt has written since I subscribed. What a rip-off!
(Obvious sarcasm is obvious, but disclaimer anyway because it's the Internet and, well, you know...)
Such defensiveness....Matt's a big boy and I doubt he needs to hide behind your skirts. Nonetheless, glad I could get a rise out of you boys. Your self righteous indignation, being your forte, makes it easy.
“You replied to my reply ergo you lose - heads I win, tails you lose.” A classic Internet argument, right up there with Godwin’s Law.
Let me guess- you're a millennial...
Taibbi’s one of the few journalists who’s maintained a sense of humor over the last four years. Clearly, you’ve lost yours...
Sorry, humor has been cancelled until further notice. We must be on our stuffiest, angriest, most furrow brow-ed internet behavior until we solve all the world's political issues of the day from our keyboards.
I finally have my answer to the burning question from one of Matt's progenitors: Where were you when the fun stopped?
For laughs, I watch Monte Python, the Marx Brothers and Seinfeld reruns. And don't forget the comedy gold of watching your average wokester trying to figure out reality.
I don't look to journalists for that. Matt T does do better than many, but it's a pretty low bar. At any rate, let him express his humor while getting high with his friends- he'd probably be a hoot.
Clarifying the history a little bit...the complement of truth being clarity and all.... The Puritans fled England and the Church to take refuge in the Netherlands, where religious tolerance was, more or less for the time, quite enlightened and accepting of alternate religions. The locals called them Puritans as an epithet, making fun of them because they thought they were more pure than anyone else. They did not flee religious intolerance as much as they wanted to get someplace where they could exercise their particularly intolerant and retentive ideas about their religion. IOW, America was founded by a strange religious cult, intent on forcing their brand of the Almighty down everyone’s throat. And, they still working on it.
If it's okay I'm still 100% committed to blaming the Dutch. Just because they should be.
Their faith in the Almighty led them to trust the individual,inspired by the Almighty, to take personal responsibility and profit from their own labor and reject the collectivism which they had originally deemed as "fair".
This led their colony to be more prosperous than they even imagined and it led to new settlers flocking to their colony to take advantage of the prosperity founded by their faith.
Ah yes, Edmund S. Morgan. The authority on the Puritans. Interesting note in the Wikipedia entry for John Winthrop (early ruler of Salem colony), "they also practiced a policy that historian Alfred Cave calls vacuum domicilium: if land is not under some sort of active use, it is free for the taking. This meant that lands could be claimed which were only used seasonally by the Indians (e.g., for fishing or hunting) and were empty otherwise. According to Alfred Cave, Winthrop claimed that the rights of "more advanced" peoples superseded the rights of the Indians."
The theory, which is being applied also in a small middle eastern area, is that the Indians were illegal immigrants to America, and illegal squatters on land that God had reserved since creation for the rightful owners, his righteous people. Manifest destiny and convenant, and all that.
That’s a theory (with resulting atrocities) that was widely practiced throughout the settling of this continent. God had anointed them as the truly deserving, so they could take whatever they wanted, and God was glad for it. 😖
As a squatter, I'd like some of that land. Preferably, lake or ocean frontage.
Some crazy is just crazy, and some crazy is prescient. So through craziness the First Amendment was born. An Enlightenment vignette, if you will.
Sort of. An enlightenment vignette is useful for understanding. I think that small group of the Founders were not the crazy ones. They were the ones that understood one had to accommodate the crazy folks if they wanted to succeed in the political structuring of this country. Reading quotes and statements by Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others, they weren’t disbelievers, but they held it as arms length with some small amount of gentle disdain.
Fuck your clarity- it's pointless.
Mule....seems to be an appropriate moniker....
Oh now, it's just a word. But hey, here's a pointless story. In a former life I worked with mules. Later, I was supervising a fire crew and we were doing project work near a corral and 2 mules walked over to examine us. I gave the crew a break and while resting up, I offered a deal to the crew: you guys can take the rest of the day off if you can tell me who is the smarter- you or those mules. A bunch of glances exchanged amongst themselves and the answer- we are, of course! I let out a big guffaw- no you dumb bastards- they are smarter than you! There's no question about it now get back to work! And I busted their asses the rest of the day.
Care to hear my comparison of mules and lefties?
"I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it."
Mules, like Mother Nature, always get the last laugh
Clint!
Thank you for this. My version was recited to me by a tenured academic at a prestigious university, so I foolishly held it as true. This is clarity.
And that was your mistake
Well played ;-)
Crazy people fighting over who God is kind of rings thru all of it, and that’s who founded this country.
Lots of good replies regards those pesky Puritans. Too bad Matt just wants to regurgitate the tired old cliches full of "woke" and devoid of any real knowledge or research.
I beg of you Matt, come out of that wilderness
Thanks for featuring the Detroit Lions, America's foremost basket of deplorables.
foremost basket of deplorables? i seriously doubt it. you ignore the washington team, dallas, and the jets.
All the aforementioned have won at least one Super Bowl. Not the Ford Lions.
I don't follow sports at all but this was still funny.
The best way to follow sports? Record it, check the score, and if it looks good, watch the highlights. You can ruin an entire day watching live. And you can't get that 3.5 hours of life back. It's gone, forever. At least until the next Einstein invents the wayback machine.
Einstein??
Eisnstein was a putz who stole "his" ideas from his first wife, and then cheated on her with his cousin.
The next Niels Bohr, maybe.
Next you'll be saying they should rename it "Bohr Bagels"
That I don't have care. I have had a bagel once in my life and didn't care for it.
But I doubt that Bohr was Jewish
Lox, onions and cream cheese. Improves the bagel.
THAT is why I consider the 1990 Giants to be the best team in the history of the sport.
I deal with a lot of foreigners and they have trouble understanding football, because when other people try to explain football to them, they get bogged down in strategy and lose them quickly.
I explain it this way.
A) you have the ball
B) you have four tries - called "downs" - to move the ball ten yards down the field.
C) if you do, you get four more tries.. If you don't, the other team gets the ball.
That's it.
The OBJECT of football is to move the ball ten yards in four tries or less.
That's it.
And that's how the 1990 Giants played the game.
They didn't a lot of points because they just couldn't push it into the end zone, but the other team didn't get a lot of chances to score either.
They went down to the Stadium Formerly Known As Joe Robbie and played the Dolphins and Dan Marino had EXACTLY three snaps from center in the first quarter.
They played a prime-time Monday Night Football game (I believe against the Lions) and I swear the closing credits were rolling two and a half hours after kick off.
A Star Wars movie lasted longer than their games.
That's the way the game should be played.
The best way is to not follow it at all- can't waste any time if you don't tune in. Wait a minute- you mean you still watch television?
Silly person (remember that Python sketch?) - recorded using a server and watch highlights on one of my "devices"
My kids recite Monte Python routines. I stopped the TV stuff in 1980. My wife found an old B&W in a Forest Service dumpster, kept it in the house but finally put a .45 slug into it on Super Bowl Sunday, 2004. My kind of woman.
Carolina Panther fan? ;-)
Great idea.
At one time, Detroit was one of a small number of richest cities in the world and the arsenal of democracy. Now, not so much.
I loved living there in the mid-2000s, though. Great music, great food, the people keep it real. Much less racism than you might expect.
I was a kid there in the 50’s and 60’s. Downtown at Christmas to see Santa Claus at Hudsons, windows all decorated, the entirety of Woodward Ave. showing decorations and lights, the train station full of commuters, the Ford Rotunda....then.....city wide collapse as the 60’s closed. I had a summer gig dismantling auto factories in the mid 70’s, when it was descending into dystopia. It was frightening to watch.
If you ride down Hamilton (adjacent to Woodward) through Detroit, you'll notice homes being bull dozed by the hundreds, mostly on the west side. Last counting, there were approximately 80,000+ homes that needed to be razed (abandoned, fire hazards, crack houses etc etc). It's trying to make a comeback.
Yeah, I know. I remember when the mass demolition started in the 80’s. A whole city got bulldozed.
That ended because in the 1970s the ruling elites of the "anglo american" countries got fed up with the worker unions (but see below for some speculation as to why) and in the 1980s with Reagan and Thatcher they decided to use a scorched earth tactic (in traditional terminology "reducing the enemy") against industries and regions "infected" by worker unions.
Consultants specializing in strategies and tactics against worker unions told the owner elites that high-capital intensity, vertically integrated industries like car-making are the most easily "infected" by worker unions, because the workforce is concentrated in a few locations, and the high value of the plants means that strikes make a lot of capital fallow, so they are effective.
Therefore the owner elites decided to disperse high capital intensity industries offshore, in many smaller plants, and in countries like China where authoritarian governments make "unapproved" worker unions and strikes almost impossible.
That resulted in the USA mid-west rust belt, and in the UK north rust belt, and the near disappearance of worker unions from private companies.
«in the 1970s the ruling elites of the "anglo american" countries got fed up with the worker unions (but see below for some speculation as to why)»
There are many reasons, among that (some of) the worker unions had become wreckers, and that WW2 was old enough that the shared experiences of the elites and workers during fighting had faded.
But I suspect that the main reason is that the elites realized that there was no realistic successor to oil as the cause of productivity increases, that peak oil had happened or was happening in the USA, and therefore the future was zero sum, and more wealth for the elites therefore could only be gained at the expense of workers.
Funny shit, Matt, even if it is just the latest screed of an increasingly grumpy aging male.
Never understood "aging" as an implicit put-down. You age or you die. Then you die anyway.
The Lions were great in the 50s - Bobby Layne! And good in the early 60s - Alex Karras.
Their fortunes fell along with those of the Ford Motor Company.
Stock is rising from the ashes. Buy early and often.
New Fords are really good; have driven many over the past few years. Got a sweet deal on a 2019 F-150 a few months back; they wanna move those babies off the lot. I don't own stock! Not a paid endorsement!
I own a few shares. That way, I can tell the Fords they work for me.
Sorry.
The Taliban were the sons of the muhajadeed who stayed behind with the noses in the Koran while their daddies were off fighting the godless Soviets. The Taliban were a bunch of egghead bookworms who that they were qualified to tell everyone else how to run their lives
Thus the Anglo-saxon Taliban would be the faculty of Harvard. Elizabeth Warren, Austin Goolsby, Richard Summers, i.e. the previous administration.
Don't forget Matt T.
There is embedded in that a tacit reference to a Buckleyism.
"I would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard."
William F. Buckley was right in that the faculty of Harvard is not fit to in a position to govern any more than their brethren the Taliban.
Unfortunately, the last administration was the faculty of Harvard, i.e the American Taliban.
I really dig the "New Today" segment.
Here's a trip for you: figuring out which direction the insane leaders are steering us only requires a factual telling.
We can draw our own deductions, and when we do... we figure it out. Guardrails today, re-education tomorrow. None of it seems good or just.
I’m thankful for this article. It had everything you could want:
1. The Lions
2. Henry VIII
3. The Puritans
This is why I read you. Like the old Pope dying piece you wrote long ago. Never change!
Jesus, Matt! I think you're being a bit unfair to... well, everyone. Either you really need a drink, or you've had one too many. Would it help you to feel better if I sent you a picture of a puppy? With a hat on? : )
What about Barry Sanders?
It's been 22 years since he ascended. He's not coming back.
For those who are interested, "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer is an interesting social history of the very different British cultures which colonized different regions of North America. There was "East Anglia to Massachusetts," of course (and as Matt shows, these Puritans were a sort of "Anglo-Saxon Taliban"), but there was also "South of England to Virginia" (the Cavaliers and their indentured servants), "North Midlands to the Delaware Valley" (the Quakers), and "Borderlands to Backcountry" (the Scotch-Irish). The latter three groups were well aware that the Puritans were "horrible people."
I think I first saw that Eddie Izzard special on a Thanksgiving, interestingly enough! Soooo good.
Why do I read the comments? I’d like the last 5 minutes back. (This is a rhetorical question containing a comment about a comments, like an Escher drawing on fire. Let your analysis be for you.)