Chiefs Sumble at the last hurdle

 

Chiefs run, stumble, fall flat on their asses, limp back to K C, not just beaten but embarrassed.

Personally I got it wrong, very wrong. I thought that the complete lack of an offensive line, whilst not ideal, would be easy to overcome. How wrong could you get! I have seen a stat showing that Mahomes ran 458 yards in the game. Only a few of them were past the line of scrimmage, mostly he ran for his life. The idea that they could play quite so poorly was just not realistic. How wrong can you get? What degree of wrongness would you prefer?

Florio and Sims on Pro Football Talk agree that the officials were very poor and the Bucs had a great plan to wind up Chris Jones and Tyrann Mathieu. And it worked. But, the better team won. And they did it with great defense and just enough offense to keep the Chiefs off balance all night.

Make no mistake no team with a non - existent offensive line and receivers who dropped more balls in one game than they have in 16 weeks was ever likely to win the Super Bowl. Then there are the penalties.

This is a tough one. If you complain about the officials it just sounds like sour grapes. And, so the accepted wisdom goes, poor calls happen and in a blow out they make hardly any difference. I disagree. No-one can predict what might happen in an alternative universe, but to contend that bad calls have hardly any effect is as simplistic as it is erroneous. Just imagine if the Mathieu interception had been allowed to stand. The game is changed dramatically. Who knows what might happen next? The refs have a lot to ponder and I believe that the Chiefs will be asking the league to look at some of the calls to try to improve the situation for other teams. My guess. Chiefs still lose by at least 10 points.

We move on.

But before we do some explanation of how things went so horribly wrong is required.

Firstly Mahomes was injured far more than we thought. The turf toe that seemed only an inconvenience turned out to be a debilitating, game changing problem. With that said, he played quite well all things considered. It was not enough, for he got precious little support from his offensive buddies. Even the usually reliable receiving corps had the dropsies.

The twitteratti are smoking with condemnation of Bret Veitch, the Chiefs GM.

They confirm what many have suspected for many years. The Chief’s O-line is really not up to scratch and Veitch has done little in either the draft or free agency to fix it. It seems that both Reid and Veitch have been so enamoured with Mahomes that they really believed that he could overcome any problems with his brilliance. Perhaps on two good legs this may have been so, but the days of poor draft choices and free agents must be over. In 2018 the Chiefs had six picks. Only Derrick Nnadi has significantly contributed to the team’s success. Three are gone and two are just hanging on (Dorian O’Daniel and Armani Watts). 2019 was not much better. Veach traded round one pick for Frank Clark. Clark has been good, but not spectacularly good, especially in this year’s Super Bowl where he had one sack of Brady and then not much else. Mecole Hardman was drafted to be the possible replacement for Tyreek Hill and has contributed on special teams and occasionally as a wide-out. Safety Juan Thjornhill has been very good until he was injured and missed last year’s Super Bowl. He’s working his way back, but slowly.

Defensive tackle Khalen Saunders has had limited action. Cornerback Rashaud Fenton is only occasionally seen. Nick Allegriti has seen plenty of action - despite being a seventh round pick. Moving to 2020, the choice of Clyde Edwards-Hellaire as pick 32 was met with some skepticism by many, including me. He has been good. But, has he been first round good? - Willie Gay Junior was a top pick and has played - some. Next year will see if he is a boom or bust. The jury is still out on lineman Lucas Niang (opted out of the Covid-year), L’Jarius Sneed was a find from the fourth round and Mike Dana looked not bad until injured. The other pick - in the seventh round - Bo’Pete Keyes was inactive most of the season.

All in all, The GM just has not invested in keeping Mahomes either upright or healthy. This must stop.

Taken as a whole, the season was a litany of errors and missed opportunities. Even in games they won, the tribe were often relying on the big play offense to overcome a poor defense and - for the first time in a long time - special teams that did not really deliver. Tommy Townsend for one has a lot to make up for. Forgetting that he has had quite a good rookie year, in the big one he muffed big-time. Expect a real fight next year to see if he is the punter going forward.

Andy Reid has a plan. He expects some time off and then to evaluate the roster. He stressed that the team must not just be defined by one game. Unfortunately, this is the NFL and they will be evaluated by the Super Bowl loss. Super Bowl Winners: Kelce, Mahomes (qualified as he was more injured than we expected), CEH (who had a good game), Clark. Losers: the o-line, Reid, Townsend, Hardman, a plethora of penalties, and some very uncharacteristic dropped passes.

 The off season should be interesting

Run It Back

 

Chiefs Super Bowl Chances 2020-21

I have spent some time this week watching last year’s Super Bowl. Some things are real pointers as to how this Run it Back season may pan out.

Firstly, I was struck by how fortunate the Chiefs were to win last season. Behind for most of the game until 8 minutes left in the fourth, they somehow managed to find something great at just the right time.

The 49ers were unlucky, as well as out-played. Why did they lose? It’s an offensive league. Before the game the focus was on the San Francisco defensive front four and how they would dominate the Chiefs offensive line and make Patrick Mahomes run around scared all day – forcing bad throws and getting sacks. In fact, Mahomes was intercepted twice and missed a few receivers (at least in the first 32 minutes) and was sacked a few times. But critically, he had time to make the throw of the season to Hill for 40 yards – on a third and fifteen – and the rest, as they say, is history.

Fast-forward. How will the Bucs fare against the Tribe’s offensive fire-power? Is the Tampa pass rush as good as San Frans? Can Tampa sack Mahomes more than a few times? Can they pressure him into interceptions? Not likely. Not by a long shot. The Chiefs handled the Tampa rush quite well in the regular season game and I expect they will again. (Yes, I know they have injuries on the line, but somehow they always manage to find a way to protect Mahomes enough for him to make plays!)  Tampa will not be able to stop the Chiefs. I trust Reid and Spagnolo to scheme on both sides of the ball.

Again this season, just in time, the defence is coming good. They look as strong as last year on the defensive line with both Chris Jones and Frank Clark rounding into form at just the right time. This season’s secondary looks even stronger than the Super Bowl winning squad. Will Tom Brady be able to complete some passes? Yes, of course he will. Will he be able to hit the home-run ball? Not very likely, the Chiefs will pressure him and force a lot of short throws. They will sack him multiple times and hit him a few more and constantly force him out of his comfort zone. I can’t see the Bucs scoring more than 21 points. That will not be enough for the Chiefs as they will be good for 35+.

The coaching match-up is both interesting and crucial. Andy Reid does not lose with two weeks to prepare. Bruce Arians is in his first Super Bowl. The Buccaneers will be out-coached as well as out-played.

Am I being too optimistic?  Only time will tell, but there is a swagger about this team that refuses to go away.  I’m a believer.

What might derail the Run it Back tour? 

Injuries, particularly on both lines. The game is usually won or lost in the trenches. Super Bowl LV will be no exception. And, the Chiefs are quite short of replacements. In a two horse race the underdog always has a chance. For the Bucs to prevail they need everything to go their way, including the bounce of the odd - shaped ball. Whereas the Chiefs can win at 80 to 90 %of all factors. 

My prediction Chiefs by 10.

Reminds me of their first triumph. I took the Chiefs and gave 10 points. We all remember how that turned out. At the end I felt sorry for the Vikings. 65 TPT will shine again. 

 

Shylock



A recent article in the Sunday Times concerning Michael Morpugo’s retelling of Shakespeare stories where he explains why he has decided to leave out the Merchant of Venice from the series raises many very uncomfortable questions. Not least of all since the article is written by Howard Jacobson (and here is a good example of inherent antisemitism, for I presume Howard is a Jew simply because of his last name, and that could be a useful definition of antisemitism).



Some personal background. Born on the south side of Chicago in the late forties meant that from an early age I was aware, though vaguely, of the word Jew and its slightly negative connotations. I also knew nigger and other now practically defunct terms for folks who were not white Anglo-Saxon protestants. I started school at St Joseph's because every white kid attended the local Catholic school - blacks were barred. But the Jewish kids were somehow classed as white by the church and were enrolled and then predictably did not attend on Yom Kippur - which annoyed the Catholic sisters intensely. Recounting such blatant racism now simply dates me as being old - some might say very old indeed. But, I assure you that was the norm in 50's Chicago.



When I was about 6 or 7, again on Chicago's south side, I remember being told that the Jewish kids down the street were taking a bath, naked, in their basement with only a window between the spectators and the bathers. Even at that tender age somehow I knew this was odd - but too good to miss. So, we stood outside and looked at a naked 6 year old Jewish girl. Not my proudest moment I admit. But it did serve to reinforce the fact that Jews were somehow different. Whether or not I noticed if her brother was circumcised I can't say as I noticed.



We moved to independence, Missouri when I was 10. In the fourth, fifth and sixth grades there were no black kids at all. Same for 7 and eight. Were there any Jews? I suppose so, but I never heard it mentioned. By the time I got to high school we had three or four black kids in our year group. I sat next to Donald Robinson, a black boy, in biology class. I’d like to think we were friends, but it never occurred to me to (for example) eat lunch with him or invite him to my house. I think my mom and dad would have taken a dim view of such an invitation. The unseen racism prevalent at the time made it almost impossible to do.



Moving into the world of work, the closest I came to a racial or ethnic minority were the Mexicans I ran into. Then At Western Electric there were a few blacks and everyone seemed to get along well. In the Army the covert racism was obvious. Strangely this was my real first experience of living and working with black people. My basic training company at Fort Polk, Louisiana was predominantly composed of black and bilingual Mexican Americans. Oddly, the training cadre was almost exclusively black and bilingual Spanish-speaking NCOs . I saw no evidence that this caused any problems. Any Jewish soldiers? No idea.



Religion was not a topic of conversation that ever came up.



Moving on to my time in Norway, there were very few blacks in our compliment. I do remember two. One was a very large,very jovial, AF enlisted man who could drink more sherry than anyone I have ever loopseen. One was a quiet, well spoken Army SP4 who had a Norgeweian girlfriend. Very pretty and very blonde, she was not him. Neither was in my social circle. In the 70s Norway was a very white very conservative country. Nowadays there are black and Asian Norwegian people and their lack of language skills is a point of contention in Norway today with at least one political party trying to institute a language test for citizenship.



I presume that there are Jewish Norwegians? (actually looking on Google I find that almost the entire Jewish community of Norway was removed to the Naxi concedntration camps where they perished. If the Norwegian people protested in the same way as the Danes, is not mentioned). There is a synagogue in Oslo today and a small, but active Jewish community.



To sum up : my exposure to both blacks and Jews in early life was small and patchy. In early adulthood, my concerns about black civil rights overshadowed my concerns about Jews in America.



Back to Michael Morpugo. His explanation as to why he decided to leave The Merchant of Venice out of his forthcoming series designed to introduce children to Shakespeare goes like this: “I avoided hylock because it worries me too much… There are assumptions right the way through about what it is to be a Jew and how Jews are thought of . . . for me it was best not to go there. It is too raw to write about for children.



The Times correspondent replies, “ I can’t pretend that I haven’t shared Morpugo’s reluctance to engage with this play. The Shylock sections are largely cruel and barbarous and the overriding tone is impatient and cynical. Shakespeare is too great a writer to be flatly racist, but I’ve seen many performances of the play that was. Shylock was too individually alive in the language of the play to be a figure of loathing the other characters see. It isn’t the Jew what's hateful, it’s the Christian Venetians. Yes there is antisemitism in the play, but it’s theirs, not Shakespeares.”



I'm an English teacher, therefore I am familiar with The Merchant of Venice. When I was 14, we read it in English lessons. So, I must try to look back through the process and make some recollection of how I reacted, (as for example upon first looking into Chapman Homer).



I knew that Shylock was the villain in the play. I knew that the christians were the heroes. I know that Shakespeare was a product of his time and antisemitism was common in England in the late 1500’s. Was I aware of the coarse racism? There I'm not so sure. I certainly don't remember the teacher talking about it. Were there any Jewish kids in the class? Again no real idea.



What is clear is that no thought went into picking the Shakespear play to study in terms of racism.anti-semitism.



But, wait a minute, what about other equally problematical Shakespeare plays? How about Othello? Full of racism (When Iago tells Brabanzio that “an old black ram / Is tupping your white ewe,” he demeans a passionate and loving relationship between two intelligent adults by characterizing Othello as a mindless rutting animal who has soiled the pure Desdemona with his lust.” What a great example courtesy of Othello: A+ Student Essay | SparkNotes The racism is even condoned, even praised by the critics!



What about misogyny in Richard III? I'll have her, but I will not keep her long. But the plain devil and dissembling looks? And yet to win her, all the world to nothing!



How about some good old fashioned common sense here?



It seems that by leaving out Merchant of Venice and ignoring other perhaps more blatant examples of Shakespear’s racism, etc, Morpugo is really saying that despite the fact that the plays and the characters in them are prisoners of their time he is simply going to single out Merchant of Venice as too difficult to deal with. The really telling feature is that Lambs Tales includes Merchant of Venice and Othello.



So, Morpugo’s reasoning is just a cop-out (or perhaps a good example of inverse racism.



A real Tragedy.

Amend the Constitution

A Pipe Dream?

 

When I was a kid, we played cowboys and Indians. We played kick the can, we played baseball and football in the backyard. Our problems and aspirations were those of kids. 

Now we deal with viruses and insurrection. Our problems are adult and manifold. Our aspirations are tempered by age, experience and, hopefully wisdom. 

Watching events unfold in Washington this week could almost make you cry and give up on the American dream. 

We are now testing whether any nation so dedicated and so conceived can long endure. We are called upon to be witnesses to the ongoing crisis. We are called upon to choose sides and decide where we go from here. 

How in the world did we get here? 

There is a school of thought that says this is all new and inevitable. This is wrong. The present crisis was easy to foresee. It may be easy to fix if we have the courage to use not only the Constitution we have, but also the one we need and deserve.

The short answer is that the Founding Fathers did not envision the advent of the modern world with its blurring of the difference between truth, fiction, lies and opinion. How could they? As a document the Constitution is a prisoner of its time. Fact is the only surprise is that it has lasted this and only been updated 16 times! I disregard the bill of rights which was added right away. An example : the bill leaves so much power in the hands of the citizen or the states, there is no way to successfully organise a coherent response to a public health emergency. Thus new records for deaths are being set daily. Whilst Rome burns a handcuffed government fiddles. Two amendments are self-cancelling ( 18 and 21) some are the result of the War (13, 14, 15) So, the amazing thing is the Constitution has only been meaningfully updated about ten times in over 200 years.  It is time for a fundamental re-think!

Would it be possible to update the Constitution for the modern age?

Regrettably it’s possible, but extremely unlikely.

The truth is that the party or faction in power is always less enamoured with such monumental change as when they are out of office.

I expect Joe Biden and the Democrats to remain true to form.  There are manifold problems already and no real impetus for Constitutional change.

This needs to change.

My prescription:  constitutional reform of the First Amendment to account for the radical change in the press; reform the second amendment to focus on the militia aspect as opposed to the individual's right to keep and bear arms; a new amendment to refocus the power of the state to regulate more aspects of individual rights - for example, making states responsible for ensuring equal opportunities and treatment under the law - but only for individuals or groups who subscribe to the principle of ensuring domestic tranquility.  A new amendment to guarantee the rights of the majority are protected against the subversion of the state to minority groups who claim to support the constitution, but only when it serves their self-identified purposes.

Another Super Bowl?

 

Chiefs Play-off Chances

What a season. The Tribe sit at 14-1 with only the home game against the Chargers before the play-offs. Likely we will end up 14-2 as the Chargers will want to put one over on the reigning Champs and the Chiefs will rest almost everyone.

Last September, even accounting for the Covid-19 crisis, most fans would have settled for that and bitten your hand off to get it.

However, in the record books it will only say Super Bowl Champions 2020-21 and the virus will not get a mention.

So, how’s it looking? Most days I wake up and thank my lucky stars we won the last Super Bowl. I distinctly remember that during that improbable run I was continually consoling myself with the thought that even if we lost, and we came mighty close in most of the play-off games and the Super Bowl, there was always next season when we will be better. Now next season is now.

Then the Virus put paid to that comforting theory. We did win the big one, but can we do it again?

It’s beginning to look like the odds are against it. Fact is: the Chief’s record flatters to deceive. Sure, they keep winning, but not very convincingly, culminating in the embarrassing win at home versus the Falcons. Me and two of my buddies could have given Atlanta a game and the Chiefs struggled, needing a missed field goal to win.

Injuries are piling up. Big Red has decided to give the starters a week off (in addition to the one they get as the number one seed), St Patrick has begun to look almost human (throwing interceptions, missing open receivers, fumbling the ball), the O-line looks a shadow of its former self, the defense is just about adequate and not really rounding into Super Bowl shape at this late stage.

The verdict is definitely out. It may be that Reid will use the time and the rest provided wisely and when the play-offs roll into KC, courtesy of our number one ranking and the home field advantage really kicks in we will see a rejuvenated Arrowhead with a few thousand screaming fans rock the team to another AFL championship game and another appearance in the big one.

Maybe.

We are thin at RB. Edwards-Helllaire had a bad ankle and may not play at all going forward. Le’veon Bell has an injury, the back ups are probably not good enough to generate any rushing attack to speak of. Mahomes dropping back 50+ times and being chased all the time is not a recipe for success.

An outsider looking in would give the Bills a good chance to beat KC. So too, maybe the Titans who will still be smarting from last season’s debacle.

The irony is that nobody in the NFC has a chance against us. I would love to see the Packers in Super Bowl LV. Revenge for Super Bowl 1 would be very sweet indeed.

There is a lot of football to be played before then, that’s for sure. Wish us luck, we may well need it!

Trump Hits Occam's Razor

 

Occam's Razor

First: an account mt sister gave about watching Fox News when the counting stopped: I assume you are right. I didn’t personally see this but if you say so, then it must be true. you’re my sister, so you wouldn’t lie to me! So, we should ask ourselves, why would the vote counting be stopped on election night? Your efforts to pin this on Google are not credible (see my conclusion to this piece to fine out why). People refer to crooked Dems in swing states. Pejorative – alleging don’t make it so. Where is the evidence? Vast amounts of Biden votes dumped. Ditto the above. Maybe the folks who were counting got tired and needed a break? Most sensible commentaries I have seen or read do allow for some voter irregularities. In an election with that many millions of votes cast it would be more than remarkable if some were not quite kosher. But, crucially, not in a sufficient numbers to invalidate a state’s overall allocation of electoral college votes. Hyperbole does not do you or any Trumpie supporter any credit. As I have said, if there are credible allegations of fraud or irregularities, they must be investigated.

Second: may I point you to https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/11/22/almost-60-percent-of-americans-believe-in-conspiracy-theories-about-jfk-heres-why-that-might-be-a-problem/

The idea that it’s all a giant conspiracy is not new nor is not remotely credible. Why? This article admits that to believe in a voter conspiracy you have to believe in a long line of Democrat conspiracies. And why not sayeth the author? One of the real strengths of our Constitution is that freedom of expression is sacrosanct (except for yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre). Therefore commentators are free to pedal the most outlandish conspiracy theories and present them as facts, because the FF believed that the individual will always be of sufficient intellect, experience, common sense and ability to separate shit from Shineola (as my Old Man used to say). In the modern age of Facebook, Twitter and some crazy thing my brother Mark just joined, the FF would have to reassess their plan.

Third: The article’s assertion that should the Supreme Court overturn the election result and in consequence the Left goes berserk (actually everyone should go berserk!) - well to hell with them! Trump will still be President, and he won’t feel constrained in his response to any of them.

You can read this as a call for civil unrest, insurrection and chaos to replace democracy and decency. I resist. So should everyone who (including my nephew, my brother, all who served in the military and the President) swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In the end I believe Trump will do so, despite the loonies egging him on.

Finally: I interject into all of the above the philosophical concept of Occam’s Razor.

In order to believe in a Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy and a fraud perpetrated on the public by the Democratic Party to get rid of Trump you have to believe in what must have been the most wide-spread, multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multi-anti-democratic, multi-Party fraud whose conspirators must number not in the tens, or hundreds, or thousands, but in the hundred-thousands (if not more) all of whom blithely go along with a conspiracy so alien to all that America stands for that Biden becoming President overcomes all their good sense, scruples, principles and common sense.

This is just silly.  Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy.  The moon landings were not faked.  Joe Biden won the election.

Occam’s Razor Rules.

Trump v Biden

 An article from Deroy Murdoch        Fox News

(incidentally, we used to be able to get Fox News in the UK on Sky TV.  You may well wonder, as I have, why they decided to discontinue it?)

Para four points out some attractive features to the voter of a Biden President, but asks us to examine the issues.  Spot on.

Next para asserts that a Biden government would be a disaster for schools.  I confess to not being sufficiently acquainted with the American educational system to be able to comment very sensibly.  From what I gather the argument is very similar to the British Academy schools system – championed by and implemented by the Conservative government.  Schools are encouraged to leave the control of the local authorities and become academies under the direct control, through funding, of the central government.  In Britain this is essentially an ideological argument. Successive Tory governments have been convinced that the teaching profession is overwhelmingly left-wing.  (they may be correct) so, the Academy system provides a counter-point to the local left-wing school boards.  It seems the Trump “school choice for every parent” seems to be similar.

(aside) How does this square with Brown v the Board?  Separate but equal is not constitutional.

Next para he contends that Biden would grant citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens, most of whom would vote Democrat.  Supposition.  Free healthcare for illegal aliens?  I’d like to see the proposals.  Seems no more daft that no healthcare for poor citizens who cannot afford insurance.  

(aside) Trump’s attempts to abolish or defuse Obamacare seems to have stopped.  Or am I misinformed?  I’ve no heard him commenting on this issue at rallies.  Have I missed it?)

Fracking.  Not an issue.  Reliance on fossil fuels will inevitably fall.  Fracking merely provides Americans with obscenely low energy prices and to that extent it’s good election policy for Trump to highlight the issue.

The Sandia Laboratories story is beyond the pale -  “According to Breitbart News and as reported on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the men were forced to attend a training course titled, “White Men’s Caucus on Eliminating Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia in Organizations,” according to Christopher F. Rufo, an author, writer, and researcher.” - not exactly a balanced viewpoint, from a variety of sources.  

This sort of media sensationalism just reinforces prejudice.  The key word here is “forced”  on what compunction?  Discussing eliminating racism, sexism and homophobia in organisations is surely a good thing.  Or, are we free to be as racist, sexist and homophobic as we like in our private lives?  I suggest we are and the attendees were just trying to save their jobs.  Daft policy by the employer.  

The conclusion concentrates on the far-left agenda of Biden.  My suspicion is that this is overblown.  In the UK the policies discussed here would be seen as fairly mainstream.  The American obsession with labeling (particularly as socialist) shines through. I well remember when I used to teach Animal Farm to 15 year olds.  At the end of the first week the whole class were ready to man the barricades and march on Parliament.  When I asked them why we need Coke and Pepsi, why not just have State Cola Number One and use the millions, maybe billions of dollars, those corporations use to try to generate a 000.1 percent advantage in the buying habits of millions of Cola drinkers they were appalled by the wasted resources.  After reading Orwell’s critique of socialism (or more specifically Soviet Communism) they had all returned to the fold and were able to examine the issues with a critical focus.  That’s education.  He idea that teachers inculcate left-wing ideas in unknowing and unthinking children is a fantasy.  Tell kids how they must think and they will cheerfully tell you to get lost.  Fact.

Moaning, Groaning Whinging British Style

 

British Rule of Six

Britain already has a rule of six: grousing, griping, moaning, groaning, whingeing and wailing:  so says Jeremy Clarkson in the Sunday Times of September 20 2020

“In the run-up to the last general election we were all assured, many times, that the Conservatives had an “oven-ready” deal on Brexit. But it seems that, when they opened the packaging, they found that actually it was full of mould, subterfuge and razor blades.

Like everyone else in the world, I cannot get my head round the detail of the issues, but, also like everyone else in the world, I’m aware of the fact that to solve it, Britain says it may have to break international law. And, naturally, this has caused all sorts of wailing, with everyone explaining that if we openly go down this road, it will shatter our reputation around the world for fair play, cricket and decency.

Except the qualities usually ascribed to the British are really just a rose-tinted historical view and bear little resemblance to modern Britain – so sayeth Jeremy Clarkson.

Is he right?

There is little doubt that the British do have an over-inflated opinion of themselves. Just look at Brexit. The main driver was the idea that we can do very well without the rest of the world. Really? In 2020?

Back to Clarkson, who recounts the story of the WWII raid on St Nazaire where one of the soldiers, interviewed after the battle said, “I remember Johnny Proctor lying there, leg blown off, cheering us on . . . “ Clarkson says this is the idea of the British we like to most offer the world. Stiff upper lip, keep calm and carry on – but is it correct in 2020?

Churchill’s rousing rhetoric about the bomb-ravaged East End still sounds impressive today, but maybe the chaps digging in the rubble were just trying to find their dog or pieces of their gran? Back then no-one was recording the thoughts of the working class.

He saves his real bile for Twitter. Perhaps, he muses thousands objected to Brunel’s plans for the GWR. Same for the M1 – but down at the Dog and Duck who would listen? Now with 24 hour Twitter we hear every squeak of complaint about HS2 hi-speed railway.

Could the Aussie’s have been right all along – the British are just a bunch of Whinging Poms?

He hopes so, so we can ditch the British stiff upper and idolized fair play and do what the Greeks do – We put our masks on so we can concentrate fully on ignoring everything the EU says.

No prize for guessing where his sympathies lie.

Chiefs prospects 2020

Turn on the dynasty. 

Oh, wait - I almost forgot the Covid 19 season, which is the NFL season we are going to get, like it or not. Therefore any discussion about 2020 is immediately suspect. We just don't know what kind of season it's going to be. 

One thing we do know is Saint Patrick is signed up as a Chief for as long as they want him. Pro football talk, courtesy of Misters Florio and Sims, have already decided that Mahomes is GOAT. For anyone else this might be the kiss of death. I fervently hope they are right. If they are then talk of a dynasty is not out of order. Add in the return of 22 of the Super Bowl starters and dynasty talk doesn't seem so far-fetched at all. 

Let's look at the 53 man roster assembled by Reid and Veitch. At QB we have Mahomes and Chad Henne. Talk about all your eggs in one basket! Don't forget Mahomes had an injury last year. On the plus side the Chiefs will look to put one, maybe two QB on the expanded Covid practice squad including last year's star Matt Moore. 

The running backs are Clyde Edwards-Hellaire, Darrel Williams and Darwin Thompson. If CEH is the real deal then fans are in for a treat. Hopefully as good as Kareem Hunt was if not better. If he's a bust then all bets are off. My fingers are crossed. Adrian Petersen, a future hall of famer is available. Watch this space. 

Anthony Sherman is the full back. An ace on special teams he is integral to the Chief's success and an indispensable member of the Super Bowl team. 

The wide outs are: Tyreek Hill, Sammy Watkins, Mecole Hardman, Demarcus Robinson, Byron Pringle and Marcus Kemp. Hardman returns kicks - Pringle and Kemp have special teams roles. The others should scare opponents senseless and will. 

There are four tight ends rostered : Kelce and Yelder are familiar to fans with Nick Keizer and Ricky Seals-Jones vying for playing time. I hope they get some. Kelce should get more time off. Let's see some two blocking tight ends sets with Kelce watching and CEH running. 

The offensive line men are : Eric Fisher, Kelechi Osemele, Austin Reiter, Andrew Wylie and Mitchell Swartz (starters) backed up by Mike Remmers, Daniel Kilgore, Nick Allegretti and Yasir Durant (the only undrafted free agent on offence). 

The Defense 

Tackles : Chris Jones, Derrick Nnadi, Kahlen Saunders and Tershawn Wharton. Wharton makes the team as an undrafted free agent and will start with Mike Pennels two game suspension at the start of the season. The Chiefs also use my favourite Tanoh Kpassagnon as a tackle on occasion. 

Defensive ends : Frank Clark, Alex Okafor, Kapassagnon, Taco Charlton, Michael Danna and Demone Harris. Breeland Speaks is gone but will surely be picked up on Waivers. I hope he doesn't come back to haunt us. 

Line backers : Anthony Hitchens, Damien Wilson, Willie Gay, Ben Neimann and Dorian O'Daniel. Gay is the rookie in to bolster a perceived Chief's weakness whilst Neimann and O'Daniel play special teams and must start getting on the field. It's long past time they stepped up. 

Corner backs : Charvarious Ward, L'Jarius Sneed, Antonio Hamilton, Rashad Fenton and BoPete Keynes. Another weakness in the roster but perhaps better than often reckoned. We'll see. 

Safeties : Tyrann Mathieu, Juan Thornhill, Daniel Sorensen, Tedric Thompson and Armani Watts. Looks a very strong group. Sorensen was an unlikely star of the play off run and an annual candidate of the pundits to be cut. He makes the team again. Watts is in the last chance saloon. Thornhill returns from injury. If he's 100%, then this is a super bowl repeating crew. 

Specialists : the Butt kicker handles the place kicks, Winchester is the long snapper and Tommy Townshend is the punter. (like so many other players on the roster he has benefitted from the lack of a pre-season and the 80 member squad limit. He gets the job by default. The good news is that punters are a dime a dozen, so if he doesn't feel any pressure he should, for he replaces a Chief's legend, Dustin Colquitt. 

Loop

So, where does this roster leave the quest for a repeat? 

On the face of it only a catastrophic injury to Mahomes and two or three others could derail the steamroller. Oh, if only it was that simple. People tend to forget that the tribe was down double figures three times in the playoffs. Therefore a strong case can be made that they were very lucky. In order to repeat they must ride the luck again. 

The opening match versus the Texans should tell us a lot. From their perspective they was robbed last year. Beating the Chiefs could well have seen them lifting the Lombardi. If I was their coach I'd be telling them exactly that most every day. Contrastingly, Andy Reid will marshal the troops to produce an offensive avalanche. We'll see. 

The bad news first, before we all get carried away. Looks like the starting secondary may feature two rookies. This was a Chiefs weakness last season. It just seems unlikely we can spot Texans a 24 point lead again and score 7 straight touchdowns. Lest we forget, it was the defence that won the Super Bowl with two quality stops in quarter 4. Also, a lot of praise has been heaped on Edwards-Hillaire and Willie Gay - two rookies who fans believe are sure things. Such confidence is often over-stated. If the Chiefs lose the opener, things may not look so rosy. 

31 of 33 pundits are picking the tribe to repeat as Super Bowl champs - and not a ball has been kicked or thrown. If the players have spent their time reading their press clippings, a fall from grace is not far away. 

At worst we make the play-offs. At best it's party time again. 

I'm hoping for the best but fearing the worst. 

****I should have gotten (note the US usage) this posted today, but I played golf instead : therefore I'm behind time and waiting for kick off and not at the computer. I'm reminded of two facts: one Andy Reid is usually a genius with time to prepare a game plan, two the Texans won at Arrowhead last year. So, perhaps expecting either or both teams to be in top condition or form is unreasonable. I expect that the skill players will be ahead of the curve and defences may have to catch up. ****

Constitution v Declaration

Why History Counts

The two most important documents in American history have a chequered history. Most people know that it was Thomas Jefferson who authored the Declaration, but the framers of the Constitution are less distinct and certainly less well-known. Despite this fact it is to the Constitution that Americans give their allegiance and regard as the crowning achievement of the revolution.

Reverence to the Constitution has not always been the norm.

On balance, the Constitution was deliberately ambiguous—but operationally pro-slavery. Perhaps more so than James Madison wanted. He’s outdone original-intent jurisprudence in reducing history to a morality play of good founders, bad critics. He loses sight of what actually happened when the ambiguously worded but slavery-suffused Constitution was finally released to an anxious public.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— Declaration of Independence, 1776

Thomas Jefferson presented the Declaration of Independence to the Continental Congress in 1776.

When the American colonies broke from England, the Continental Congress asked Thomas Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence. In the declaration, Jefferson expressed American grievances and explained why the colonists were breaking away. His words proclaimed America’s ideals of freedom and equality, which still resonate throughout the world.

Yet at the time these words were written, more than 500,000 black Americans were slaves. Jefferson himself owned more than 100. Slaves accounted for about one-fifth of the population in the American colonies. Most of them lived in the Southern colonies, where slaves made up 40 percent of the population.

Many colonists, even slave holders, hated slavery. Jefferson called it a “hideous blot” on America. George Washington, who owned hundreds of slaves, denounced it as “repugnant.” James Mason, a Virginia slave owner, condemned it as “evil.”

But even though many of them decried it, Southern colonists relied on slavery. The Southern colonies were among the richest in America. Their cash crops of tobacco, indigo, and rice depended on slave labor. They weren’t going to give it up.

The first U.S. national government began under the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781.

(The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. This document said nothing about slavery. It left the power to regulate slavery, as well as most powers, to the individual states. After their experience with the British, the colonists distrusted a strong central government. The new national government consisted solely of a Congress in which each state had one vote. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789.)

Looking at the balance of the emphasis of both documents it's easy to see that practically and operationally the Constitution takes precedence.

This is the norm. Jefferson’s magnum opus is revered, but it is to the Constitution that Americans give their allegiance. So, how did this come about and is it healthy?

The founding fathers (FF) always knew that the Constitution would be a compromise. Given the state of the nation after the experiment with the Articles of Confederation: it could be nothing else.

In order to get the southern states on board compromises had to be made. The chief compromise was in allowing slave states to count 3 fifths of slaves as population for the purpose of deciding the population of each state, and therefore the number of members of the house of representatives. Putting it simple: the FF no matter how revered ensured that the Constitution not only recognised slavery but also rewarded its continuation.

These compromises led many abolitionists to call the Constitution a pact with the devil.

The Declaration presented no such ambiguity. Unless you consider slaves not to be men? Jefferson's mantra that all men are created equal rings out-even though he was a slave holder himself. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a creed not present in the constitution. Instead we have in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defence. Admirable aspirations but lacking the humanity features of the Declaration.

The Constitution was out of date from the beginning. No sooner were the required ratifications received than the first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) were added. What Americans see as their fundamental rights stem from these first 10 amendments.

Fast forward to the Covid 19 pandemic and the response of the Vice President, Mike Pence. In response to a question from the media as to why the government had not done more to discourage people from mass gatherings and protests. Mike reminded them that the Constitution guarantees the right to assembly.

(The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress …)

As to whether this applies in a public health emergency is probably open to debate.

The Constitution is an evolving document. The Declaration stands as it was written. The Constitution is a working framework for government, the Declaration is aspirational. On balance I prefer the Declaration of Independence, for it speaks to the goals and qualities which all Americans ought to respect and work to achieve.

Why Some British People Don't like Donald Trump

Trump - George Floyd - the NFL

I found this whilst rummaging around in my saved files, and just had to share it. There must be another side to the story, but the premise that the Donald's unique brand of communication leaves a lot to be desired seems almost irrefutable. 

Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" 

Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:

"A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

'My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

There is a lot here to like. Problem is: the dyed in the wool Trump fanatics just turn off, disengage and go their merry way. The concept of considered political debate (not that this piece is a good example of that) is alien to them. Not surprisingly they have so bought into the idea that he is not a professional politician they have become immune to rational discourse. His failings both as a politician and as a human being are sublimated to their wild - eyed devotion to what they perceive as the cause. They are, in concert with Trump, against things, never actually for anything. 

Fortunately, these people will not decide the next election - this coming November. Elections are won by the voters in the middle. Last time they decided to let the amateur have a go. They were perfectly entitled to do so. And, those who oppose the President are handicapped by the need to win the middle back without alienating them by pointing out the idiocy of their choice four years ago. 

Human nature doesn't change all that much. To overcome the advantages given to the incumbent, the opposition will have to present an agenda for change:  and do it in such a way as to avoid the traps Trump will surely spring along the way. They may be helped by the death of George Floyd and a virus. 

For my entertainment I usually record and watch Pro Football Talk with Mike Florio and Chris Simms.  They devoted an entire two hour session yesterday to discussing the impact on the NFL (whose players are largely black) of the events in Minneapolis.  They conclude that things have to change.  And change, now. Like today.

We have heard this before and the number of false dawns is only surpassed by the number of black Americans who have died whilst in the hands of the police.  There will be an NFL season - whether it will be a tribute to improving race relations remains to be seen.

President Trump can still win in November, no matter how unlikely that may seem today

Ferguson's Last Hurrah

Niall Ferguson Commentator

Sunday May 24 2020  The Sunday Times

“My crystal ball missed Brexit but got Donald Trump

Those who make predictions must keep a tally. So how did I do?

It has been nearly 4½ years since I began writing this column, which works out at roughly 240,000 words altogether. As these will be my last words in these pages, it’s time to look back and take stock. If part of your job is to be a pundit then, as the Pennsylvania University political scientist Philip Tetlock argues in Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction, you need to keep score.”

I have tried to find out why Ferguson is leaving the paper but can find nothing at present. This is a shame. I always read his column, mostly because he writes well and often offers an alternative analysis to the generally accepted view. 

Ferguson reminds us that on the two big issues during his sojourn at the Sunday Time, namely Brexit and Donald Trump, he got it wrong. 

On Brexit he wrote that the idea that Britain can separate itself from Europe is an illusion. Without the UK the future of Europe would be one of escalating instability.

Bonking Boris (even in the middle of a Covid 19 crisis) is nothing if he is not at least consistent. News today is that he rejects (again and as usual) any extension to the Brexit deadline. This is despite the news that Michel Barnier (EU Brexit supremo) has been touting the idea of a two year extension to all and sundry opposition parties in the UK. 

He reminds us that he called Brexiteers Angloonies and happy morons  and he predicted a stairway to hell or at least a recession and he got it wrong.  Full marks for fessing up!

I wish he had spent some time explaining why and how he got it so wrong. 

Meanwhile Boris government seems unable to function without his favourite flunky:

https://www.ft.com/content/df904fd8-9f54-11ea-b65d-489c67b0d85d

And whilst the bodies pile up Boris learns to play the violin whilst his government goes up in smoke. And the hits just keep on coming! 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-trade-talks-safeguards-government-human-rights-act-gove-a9535056.html 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-trade-talks-safeguards-government-human-rights-act-gove-a9535056.html 

Niall hints at the problem.  Perhaps I can help him out.  The record seems fairly clear.  The folks who voted for Brexit were as he describes.  Donald Trump simply borrowed their play book and ran the same offence.

Not beholden to the folks who voted, I have no problem in reminding everyone that in general Brexit happened because the British public (or at least a large proportion of it) were too stupid to realise what Brexit really means.  They still don’t, for no matter how much Boris blusters real Brexit will not happen until at least the end of the year.  By that time we may be so stupefied by Covid 19 that the idiots who voted for Brexit may have forgotten and simply blame the fact that we are going to hell in a handcart on the virus.  If Boris is very lucky, this may work.  If not he’s had it.  Niall reminds the readers that he advised David Cameron (remember him?) to reject the risible terms that the EU leaders offered him in February on EU migrants “eligibility for benefits”.  He should have called their bluff and backed Brexit.  (put that in your pipe and smoke it Merkle/Macron!)  Alas, he dithered and let Boris and Michael Gove out-think-out-manouever-and-out-smart him.  Result: the inmates are now in charge of the asylum.

Turning to Niall’s Trumpian analysis:  in April 2016 he predicted the bursting of the Trump bubble.  Sometimes he went against the prevailing mood by reminding us that Trump has the face that fits the ugly mood in America (very prophetic)  -mainly because the Republican voters are actually worse off than in the previous presidential election.

Ferguson says. “I was against Trump.  I signed  the “never Trump” letter.  He condemned Trump’s open expressions of racial prejudice and xenophobia.  But, he also clearly saw the appeal:  the white middle-classes may stay at home, the young won’t be bothered to turn out for Hillary and the older voters will turn out for Trump,just as their English counterparts did for Brexit.

To celebrate his first year, Ferguson compares the chances of Trump with the Chicago Cubs - the outsiders who had just won the World Series..  he can win if there is a differential in turnout between his supporters and Clinton’s in the battleground states comparable to the age and ethnicity-based differentials in the UK referendum.  

That’s just about what happened.

The tragedy is that the old duffers who propelled Trump to the White House and the and Nigel Farage into cloud-cuckoo land euphoria, will not be around to reap the whirlwind.  The Covid 19 may well have the last laugh on Brexit and Trump.