Vanover to Cal

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No way that seat wasn't modified! Hahaha.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

puget sound cal fan said:

Gotta believe Andre Kelley is happy to have a 7'3" Center with him on the front line.
Except that he is not going to be on the front line, apparently. Most fans in this thread want him out on the perimeter shooting threes. And since players on average miss two-thirds of their threes, there are plenty of opportunities for offensive rebounds, but Vanover won't be close to the basket to help get them, if he is mostly on the perimeter. Cal lost their two best rebounders, Lee and Okoroh, to graduation, and I have been wondering where Cal will get their rebounds this coming season. An occasional trip out to the perimeter for Vanover to shoot a 3 (1-3 times per game) would be OK, but we need help INSIDE on both offense and defense more than anything, to even hope we will at least as good as we were last season, let alone get better.
Sfc, you gotta lighten up a bit sometimes.
Of course we want Connor to rebound. And score inside.

Please say 3 Hail Marys and post 2 jokes and 1 sarcastic response.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

SFCityBear said:

puget sound cal fan said:

Gotta believe Andre Kelley is happy to have a 7'3" Center with him on the front line.
Except that he is not going to be on the front line, apparently. Most fans in this thread want him out on the perimeter shooting threes. And since players on average miss two-thirds of their threes, there are plenty of opportunities for offensive rebounds, but Vanover won't be close to the basket to help get them, if he is mostly on the perimeter. Cal lost their two best rebounders, Lee and Okoroh, to graduation, and I have been wondering where Cal will get their rebounds this coming season. An occasional trip out to the perimeter for Vanover to shoot a 3 (1-3 times per game) would be OK, but we need help INSIDE on both offense and defense more than anything, to even hope we will at least as good as we were last season, let alone get better.
Sfc, you gotta lighten up a bit sometimes.
Of course we want Connor to rebound. And score inside.

Please say 3 Hail Marys and post 2 jokes and 1 sarcastic response.
Who you tellin' to lighten up, Sunshine?

There are 8 posts in this thread optimistically talking about Vanover's three-point shooting, and only 2 posts that touched minimally on his defense. No one has mentioned his post play, his rebounding, or his passing, to name important basketball skills, if you expect this kid to start at center for the Bears. You have to go over to Sluggo's thread where he mentions these other skills. If "of course we want Canover to rebound and score inside" is true, then why didn't you or your friends even mention those things before this?

Fact is, Vanover can not be in two places at once, so if he is hanging out on the perimeter, he is not inside in position to rebound. Thomas Welsh made only one three before last season. He is a 41% shooter. He is also a good rebounder at 11 per game. He attempted 3.4 threes a game. He is not even in the same league as Mel Counts, who shot the lights out, averaging 27 points and 16 rebounds in his last year, named consensus All-American, and taking Oregon State to the Final Four the year before. I'd say that if Vanover can shoot near 40% and can get 8 rebounds in a game, then let him have three perimeter shot attempts a game, like Welsh, but no more, unless he gets hot.

Everybody is so all-fired concerned about our three point shooting, that we forget that Cal was the worst defense in the PAC12, giving up about 80 points a game. We need to shore up that defense and replace the rebounders we lost to graduation first and foremost before we start thinking perimeter shooting.

As to Hail Marys, I'm not Catholic. I was recruited to play CYO basketball because they needed a player to get rebounds and play defense. I was a perimeter shooter, and they never passed me the ball. They taught me the Hail Marys and how to cross myself before a free throw, but I haven't done it since I left the CYO 60 years ago. You say the Hail Marys for me. Scratch that. You say them for the Cal team. They need all the help they can get.





concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Who you tellin' to lighten up, Sunshine?

If "of course we want Canover to rebound and score inside" is true, then why didn't you or your friends even mention those things before this?

Because he's SEVEN f'n THREE inches tall !!!!
It's as obvious that he's going to play inside and grab rebounds as it is that he's going to play the 5-spot (which he hilariously answered a question about his role by stating that - really?)

The LIGHT side of the coin, SFC, is that Moraga stated that he can shoot from the outside (as merely a boost to his resume) and we take that and throw confetti on his 3 point shooting ability. It's humor, it's celebration over our signing a tall guy (at last) and his ability... I can't explain it to you....

Will he shoot it a bit from outside? Hey, I think his % is already the best on the team. Put that in your hat and smoke it.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFC, you should swing over to the Off Topic forum. There's some live action there. I'm sure you could have some fun, one way or another!!!
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Free throw line. Shoot it or pass to someone cutting. Something we have not had. Rabb could of but was never used that way.
Up with the Blue and Gold. Down with the Red!
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

SFC, you should swing over to the Off Topic forum. There's some live action there. I'm sure you could have some fun, one way or another!!!
I am an admirer of SFC's basketball knowledge and vision (and writing style). Having said that, my recollection is that his forays on the OT boardlet (assuming I'm remembering the right guy) were, from my humble point of view, very unsuccessful in that they were very serious, and very right-wing-defensive (along the lines of doom-saying of the modern world) - majorly lacking the admirable objectivity of his basketball writing, which quality, in my mind, makes him generally more credible on this side than any detractors, especially since he seems to have no qualms on this side about admitting the points of others when they have objective merit. Boy, if I ever see that coming from the American political right (I'm inclined to say something like "It'll be a cold day . . . " (in hell, is the long version).
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear, Vanover would be used on the perimeter SOMTIMES on offense, but ALMOST NEVER on defense (possible exception would be if we were playing man and he was guarding a "stretch 5")), so he would be available for interior rebounding the vast majority of the time, including ALMOST ALL of the time on the defensive end.
EricBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Big C said:

SFCityBear, Vanover would be used on the perimeter SOMTIMES on offense, but ALMOST NEVER on defense (possible exception would be if we were playing man and he was guarding a "stretch 5")), so he would be available for interior rebounding the vast majority of the time, including ALMOST ALL of the time on the defensive end.


Correct. Exclusively a zone defender.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

SFCityBear, Vanover would be used on the perimeter SOMTIMES on offense, but ALMOST NEVER on defense (possible exception would be if we were playing man and he was guarding a "stretch 5")), so he would be available for interior rebounding the vast majority of the time, including ALMOST ALL of the time on the defensive end.


Until he bulks up (or develops a sky hook) I actually like the idea of him as a 3 point threat on offense and interior of the zone on defense. This team needs shooters and that should open the interior for others.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caltagjohnson said:

If you remember the UCLA game where Thomas Welsh parked in the corner, wide open, and hit threes. Nobody guarded him. Connor could do the same thing. With his height he can shoot over anyone likely to guard him. His opposing center probably won't even come out to the corner. With his height and skills he can be potent on offense.
True, but if he did that, we'd have no one to rebound, s SFCity points out. His forays to the perimeter need to be out of motion or off of screens and not "parking."
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

puget sound cal fan said:

Gotta believe Andre Kelley is happy to have a 7'3" Center with him on the front line.
Except that he is not going to be on the front line, apparently. Most fans in this thread want him out on the perimeter shooting threes. And since players on average miss two-thirds of their threes, there are plenty of opportunities for offensive rebounds, but Vanover won't be close to the basket to help get them, if he is mostly on the perimeter. Cal lost their two best rebounders, Lee and Okoroh, to graduation, and I have been wondering where Cal will get their rebounds this coming season. An occasional trip out to the perimeter for Vanover to shoot a 3 (1-3 times per game) would be OK, but we need help INSIDE on both offense and defense more than anything, to even hope we will at least as good as we were last season, let alone get better.
For this reason, I'd rather he confine himself to shooting 15 feet away at most, even though many bigs have made the 3 part of their arsenal. I'd rather have the rebounding and let someone else take the threes.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

puget sound cal fan said:

Gotta believe Andre Kelley is happy to have a 7'3" Center with him on the front line.
Except that he is not going to be on the front line, apparently. Most fans in this thread want him out on the perimeter shooting threes. And since players on average miss two-thirds of their threes, there are plenty of opportunities for offensive rebounds, but Vanover won't be close to the basket to help get them, if he is mostly on the perimeter. Cal lost their two best rebounders, Lee and Okoroh, to graduation, and I have been wondering where Cal will get their rebounds this coming season. An occasional trip out to the perimeter for Vanover to shoot a 3 (1-3 times per game) would be OK, but we need help INSIDE on both offense and defense more than anything, to even hope we will at least as good as we were last season, let alone get better.
For this reason, I'd rather he confine himself to shooting 15 feet away at most, even though many bigs have made the 3 part of their arsenal. I'd rather have the rebounding and let someone else take the threes.
Me too.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assuming someone else can maje them.
Up with the Blue and Gold. Down with the Red!
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

For this reason, I'd rather he confine himself to shooting 15 feet away at most, even though many bigs have made the 3 part of their arsenal. I'd rather have the rebounding and let someone else take the threes.

I could see him taking a wide open three trailing a break or as the last one up the court on offense. Also if he takes any three from the top he'll be in a better position to get back on defense. If he's an offensive threat away from the basket he might draw one of the opponent's better rebounders away from the basket if they're in a man-to-man defense. Anyway I'm more concerned with defensive rebounding.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

Assuming someone else can maje them.
If it does turn out that we don't shoot threes much better than last season, then I would hope we would cut down on the number of three point attempts, and focus more on shots that we can make. Play to our strengths. I thought that last season. But doing that requires more teamwork and plays that can produce open looks closer to the basket. That takes X's and O's and lots of practice, along with players being willing to set each other up, instead of looking for their own shot.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

Yogi Bear said:

For this reason, I'd rather he confine himself to shooting 15 feet away at most, even though many bigs have made the 3 part of their arsenal. I'd rather have the rebounding and let someone else take the threes.

I could see him taking a wide open three trailing a break or as the last one up the court on offense. Also if he takes any three from the top he'll be in a better position to get back on defense. If he's an offensive threat away from the basket he might draw one of the opponent's better rebounders away from the basket if they're in a man-to-man defense. Anyway I'm more concerned with defensive rebounding.
He could pick and pop from the top of the key like Sean Marks and Ryan Anderson.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Vanover s ceiling is the Stanford center who just graduated

And if he had the same career I would be ecstatic, but I don't expect it. The Stanford center was a 4 star and was more ready coming out of HS
Fyght4Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I love the idea that a sharpshooting Vanover can pull opposing big men away from the basket, opening lanes for our slashers.
🎵There’s the Highland Dutch and the Lowland Dutch
The Rotterdam Dutch and Tim DeRuyter 🎶
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe it is important to not think either-or here. The days of Shaq O'Neal type bigs just camping down on the low block and not moving are over (at least for now). I would like to see Vanover as a mobile big who plays with his back to the basket, but screens and moves without the ball. Because he can apparently shoot, he will be able to pick-and-pop as well as pick-and roll. He can take his man to the top of the key and/or the corner. Modern motion offenses have a lot of movement--Draymond Greens spends time going beyond the arc, but he leads the W's in rebounding.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fyght4Cal said:

I love the idea that a sharpshooting Vanover can pull opposing big men away from the basket, opening lanes for our slashers.


Exactly. And until he gains some weight, he will probably have difficulty maintaing position (he was not a great rebounder in high echool), so if he can pull the other team's better rebounding big away from the basket, it could be a net win with someone like Kelly picking up the rebound.
joe amos yaks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It would be nice if all players (1- 4 and the bigs) could shoot FT's better than Wilt.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
They'll need defensive rebounds from Vanover and he'll be in position for that.

On offense, when he's playing around the perimeter, he can crash the boards with his length and get long rebounds. He doesn't need to be camped under the bucket on O to be effective.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The tolerant mr. cohen strikes again.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

The tolerant mr. cohen strikes again.

Extremism in defense of truth is no vice; and moderation in the exposing of lies is no virtue.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

concordtom said:

SFC, you should swing over to the Off Topic forum. There's some live action there. I'm sure you could have some fun, one way or another!!!
I am an admirer of SFC's basketball knowledge and vision (and writing style). Having said that, my recollection is that his forays on the OT boardlet (assuming I'm remembering the right guy) were, from my humble point of view, very unsuccessful in that they were very serious, and very right-wing-defensive (along the lines of doom-saying of the modern world) - majorly lacking the admirable objectivity of his basketball writing, which quality, in my mind, makes him generally more credible on this side than any detractors, especially since he seems to have no qualms on this side about admitting the points of others when they have objective merit. Boy, if I ever see that coming from the American political right (I'm inclined to say something like "It'll be a cold day . . . " (in hell, is the long version).
Come on Mike. Character assassination? Is that all you've got? You are a smart guy. As long as you want to discuss my politics, I would have expected more from you. BTW, the term right-wing has little meaning today, except in the minds of leftists who want to group all Republicans into one ideological agenda. The Republican Party is comprised of conservatives, neo-conservatives, evangelical Christians, libertarians, moderates, liberals, and now nationalists. The conservatives themselves are divided into fiscal conservatives, social conservatives or both. They seldom agree on anything. They don't often support this Republican President, and some want him defeated.

You have accused me of being serious about politics, of not being objective, and in a later post, you implied that I told lies. I am more serious about politics than basketball, so I am guilty. You accuse me of not being objective, but I find no objectivity in your post, only ad hominem verbiage. You accuse me of "doom-saying of the modern world," conveniently overlooking the fact that the left attracts new voters by prospecting for new victims of the evil white men supposedly in power, and promising to take money by force from the citizens who have this money, and then giving it to the victims, minus hefty carrying charges, of course. It is the left who paints a doomsday picture, from global warming, to white men killing women, cops indiscriminately killing blacks, and so on.

My parents were democrats, and at Cal I was a liberal. I worked for the Democratic Party in charge of recruiting precinct workers in San Francisco's precincts and getting out the vote in Lyndon Johnson's election. As an engineering student, I was required to take Social Science for a year, where we read and discussed nothing but Marx, Engels, and Mao's little red book. It was indoctrination, and I fell for it. I got involved in the free speech movement, and following college I was a member of the new left. I was in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) the largest national socialist/communist student organization. My good friends were national officers of SDS. Through their influence I read leftists like Carl Oglesby, Franz Fanon, Saul Alinsky, and many more. Marty Tandler, who was the Mario Savio of the Wisconsin campus and a national officer of SDS, was my roommate in NYC. Bob Frankel was another national officer and a friend. I went to the South during the Civil Rights movement to protest segregation. I was in the anti-Vietnam war movement. My point here is that I paid my left wing dues. I know the left, I understand the left. Whatever you think you know about the left, I think I've been there and done that.

I had almost signed up with other young students to join the Venceremos Brigade to go to Cuba and cut sugar cane, and offer my services as an engineer to Castro's government, when I had a "come to Jesus moment." It was during the march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. There were 500,000 of us marching from the Lincoln Memorial to the Pentagon that day. I had met a girl, Marcie, at a party the night before, and we decided to march together. It was hot and humid, and a long march of a few miles to the Pentagon, which is out in the middle of nowhere. There was no water, no food, and no toilets. The protesters got restless and irritable in the heat. Marcie insisted on going up to the front to see what was happening. We made our way to the front, which was some steps leading up to a small plaza with the front doors of the Pentagon about 35 yards away. On either side of the steps, there were some concrete walls about 6 feet high. An armored personnel carrier was parked in the plaza. On the Pentagon roof in front of us was a .50 caliber machine gun, aimed off to one side. On a signal from an officer, about 50 soldiers armed with rifles deployed out of the vehicle, and took up positions lining up in rows on the steps in front of us. Marcie and I were standing about 4 feet from the soldiers. There were two men with bull horns perched on each of the walls to the side of us, and they began exhorting the crowd to move forward and "Take the Pentagon." These men were provocateurs, and I had no doubt they were of the far left. I had seen this so many times before in demonstrations. The crowd behind us began to push forward. The order came for the soldiers in the rows behind the first row to fix bayonets. The soldiers in front of me were young kids, only a few years younger than I, and I looked in their eyes. They were frightened and so was I. We were hemmed in, and there was no way out, and these two guys with the bull horns did not let up. It was clear, they wanted some of us to die, they wanted some martyrs for the publicity it would bring. Then the order came, and the two soldiers on the roof swung the .50 caliber machine gun around and pointed it right at us. Marcie was freaking out, and I was sure we were going to die.

Just at that moment, some hippies with signs somehow managed to get into the Pentagon by a side door, and began running back and forth in the foyer shouting, "Where's the war room? Where's the war room?" The soldiers started to laugh at them, and then the crowd started laughing, and in a matter of a minute or less, the whole situation had defused into nothing, and we all turned around and walked back to town. I looked around and the two guys with the bull horns had disappeared. I wanted to wring their necks. They probably got their wish, however, because not long after that march, there was another demonstration at Kent State, the national guard killed three students, which led directly to the US pulling out of Vietnam, ending the war. That could have been me, killed because two leftists wanted martyrs for their cause.

I became apolitical after that for many years. Later as we began to learn of all the suppression by communist regimes, the atrocities, and the executions, many for just speaking against some words, I took notice. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and several others were all butchers. 100 million murdered, by some estimates. That is the trouble with the left, and their revolutions, which enables a strong man to take over during the upheaval created. All the communist governments have failed or are failing, except those that incorporate some capitalism. Now I read Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Walter Williams, Bill Buckley, Thomas Sowell, Paul Johnson, Dennis Prager, and many more. For race, I depend on the speeches and writings of Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass. Considering what I've seen in life, I think I'm qualified to describe what I've seen of both right and left and the various groups that make up both, and be objective about it. I may not be right, but I do try and be objective. I consider myself a classic liberal, in the mold of Locke, or Pat Moynihan. And as such right now I find I have more in common with true conservatives than I do with anything I hear on the left. You think I tell lies, just listen to any daily newscast, and you will hear multiple lies from the left every day.

If you want to discuss issues, fine. If you want to trade ad hominem attacks, you can count me out. All leftists are more skilled at it than I am.





mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

mikecohen said:

concordtom said:

SFC, you should swing over to the Off Topic forum. There's some live action there. I'm sure you could have some fun, one way or another!!!
I am an admirer of SFC's basketball knowledge and vision (and writing style). Having said that, my recollection is that his forays on the OT boardlet (assuming I'm remembering the right guy) were, from my humble point of view, very unsuccessful in that they were very serious, and very right-wing-defensive (along the lines of doom-saying of the modern world) - majorly lacking the admirable objectivity of his basketball writing, which quality, in my mind, makes him generally more credible on this side than any detractors, especially since he seems to have no qualms on this side about admitting the points of others when they have objective merit. Boy, if I ever see that coming from the American political right (I'm inclined to say something like "It'll be a cold day . . . " (in hell, is the long version).
Come on Mike. Character assassination? Is that all you've got? You are a smart guy. As long as you want to discuss my politics, I would have expected more from you. BTW, the term right-wing has little meaning today, except in the minds of leftists who want to group all Republicans into one ideological agenda. The Republican Party is comprised of conservatives, neo-conservatives, evangelical Christians, libertarians, moderates, liberals, and now nationalists. The conservatives themselves are divided into fiscal conservatives, social conservatives or both. They seldom agree on anything. They don't often support this Republican President, and some want him defeated.

You have accused me of being serious about politics, of not being objective, and in a later post, you implied that I told lies. I am more serious about politics than basketball, so I am guilty. You accuse me of not being objective, but I find no objectivity in your post, only ad hominem verbiage. You accuse me of "doom-saying of the modern world," conveniently overlooking the fact that the left attracts new voters by prospecting for new victims of the evil white men supposedly in power, and promising to take money by force from the citizens who have this money, and then giving it to the victims, minus hefty carrying charges, of course. It is the left who paints a doomsday picture, from global warming, to white men killing women, cops indiscriminately killing blacks, and so on.

My parents were democrats, and at Cal I was a liberal. I worked for the Democratic Party in charge of recruiting precinct workers in San Francisco's precincts and getting out the vote in Lyndon Johnson's election. As an engineering student, I was required to take Social Science for a year, where we read and discussed nothing but Marx, Engels, and Mao's little red book. It was indoctrination, and I fell for it. I got involved in the free speech movement, and following college I was a member of the new left. I was in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) the largest national socialist/communist student organization. My good friends were national officers of SDS. Through their influence I read leftists like Carl Oglesby, Franz Fanon, Saul Alinsky, and many more. Marty Tandler, who was the Mario Savio of the Wisconsin campus and a national officer of SDS, was my roommate in NYC. Bob Frankel was another national officer and a friend. I went to the South during the Civil Rights movement to protest segregation. I was in the anti-Vietnam war movement. My point here is that I paid my left wing dues. I know the left, I understand the left. Whatever you think you know about the left, I think I've been there and done that.

I had almost signed up with other young students to join the Venceremos Brigade to go to Cuba and cut sugar cane, and offer my services as an engineer to Castro's government, when I had a "come to Jesus moment." It was during the march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. There were 500,000 of us marching from the Lincoln Memorial to the Pentagon that day. I had met a girl, Marcie, at a party the night before, and we decided to march together. It was hot and humid, and a long march of a few miles to the Pentagon, which is out in the middle of nowhere. There was no water, no food, and no toilets. The protesters got restless and irritable in the heat. Marcie insisted on going up to the front to see what was happening. We made our way to the front, which was some steps leading up to a small plaza with the front doors of the Pentagon about 35 yards away. On either side of the steps, there were some concrete walls about 6 feet high. An armored personnel carrier was parked in the plaza. On the Pentagon roof in front of us was a .50 caliber machine gun, aimed off to one side. On a signal from an officer, about 50 soldiers armed with rifles deployed out of the vehicle, and took up positions lining up in rows on the steps in front of us. Marcie and I were standing about 4 feet from the soldiers. There were two men with bull horns perched on each of the walls to the side of us, and they began exhorting the crowd to move forward and "Take the Pentagon." These men were provocateurs, and I had no doubt they were of the far left. I had seen this so many times before in demonstrations. The crowd behind us began to push forward. The order came for the soldiers in the rows behind the first row to fix bayonets. The soldiers in front of me were young kids, only a few years younger than I, and I looked in their eyes. They were frightened and so was I. We were hemmed in, and there was no way out, and these two guys with the bull horns did not let up. It was clear, they wanted some of us to die, they wanted some martyrs for the publicity it would bring. Then the order came, and the two soldiers on the roof swung the .50 caliber machine gun around and pointed it right at us. Marcie was freaking out, and I was sure we were going to die.

Just at that moment, some hippies with signs somehow managed to get into the Pentagon by a side door, and began running back and forth in the foyer shouting, "Where's the war room? Where's the war room?" The soldiers started to laugh at them, and then the crowd started laughing, and in a matter of a minute or less, the whole situation had defused into nothing, and we all turned around and walked back to town. I looked around and the two guys with the bull horns had disappeared. I wanted to wring their necks. They probably got their wish, however, because not long after that march, there was another demonstration at Kent State, the national guard killed three students, which led directly to the US pulling out of Vietnam, ending the war. That could have been me, killed because two leftists wanted martyrs for their cause.

I became apolitical after that for many years. Later as we began to learn of all the suppression by communist regimes, the atrocities, and the executions, many for just speaking against some words, I took notice. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and several others were all butchers. 100 million murdered, by some estimates. That is the trouble with the left, and their revolutions, which enables a strong man to take over during the upheaval created. All the communist governments have failed or are failing, except those that incorporate some capitalism. Now I read Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Walter Williams, Bill Buckley, Thomas Sowell, Paul Johnson, Dennis Prager, and many more. For race, I depend on the speeches and writings of Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass. Considering what I've seen in life, I think I'm qualified to describe what I've seen of both right and left and the various groups that make up both, and be objective about it. I may not be right, but I do try and be objective. I consider myself a classic liberal, in the mold of Locke, or Pat Moynihan. And as such right now I find I have more in common with true conservatives than I do with anything I hear on the left. You think I tell lies, just listen to any daily newscast, and you will hear multiple lies from the left every day.

If you want to discuss issues, fine. If you want to trade ad hominem attacks, you can count me out. All leftists are more skilled at it than I am.


I agree with everything you say about the sins of the left with which you were intimately familiar, and the cosmic sins of the totalitarian leftist dictators, some of the worst of which (e.g., the Khmer Rouge) you even left out. But do you think there is anyone on the American Left in recent decades remotely like that?

I also agree that capitalism does more than a lot for the benefit of mankind that governments cannot do, and is an absolutely necessary part of our social fabric. Where we appear to part company is my reading of the "conservative" (I prefer "right wing" because I think the right in American politics these days - including the writers you mention - are more interested in destroying ALL THINGS GOVERNMENT, like Grover Norquist who wants government small enough to drown in the bathtub; and I believe that, like I was saying about capitalism above, there are certain things that capitalism cannot do, and it is necessary for government to do, just because of the natural and inexorable tendency of capitalism toward monopoly, the natural tendency of which is to impoverish those outside of the monopolies, which, of course, is the reverse of the origins of capitalism which was to liberate the great majorities of people excluded from the feudal power structure. So now, for example, as Sinclair media has just shown its hand in having its huge percentage of news outlets read the exact same message at the same time, the likelihood of oppression, at least in our country, appears to be becoming greater from concentrations of private power than from public power. In short (and its a long conversation with lots of examples of necessary functions of government which have been failing the people as anti-government sentiment has risen in the body politic), I believe that, at least with the social/cultural tools and practicalities available to us at this time, this natural division of power has to become manifest; and I think that, it being natural, it will; but I fear that it may take a cataclysm, on the order of the Great Depression, to do it (with the horrible consequences it brought), although I remain hopeful that there might be enough energy on the left to bring about more balance through the ballot box, despite the truly horrible degree of voter suppression that the right wing has managed throughout this country in recent years.

Of course, as I say that, I also know that power, by its nature, is also contrary to balance, just as monopolistic capital is. In a certain way, it is not hardly natural for people seeking power to stop at "enough". Rather, the only thing that allows any kind of balance is reciprocating power; and so, for me, the question becomes the form of that power; and, for me, that is the hope of law, and science, as offering at least the chance at proceeding on the basis of truth - which is, of course, especially now, one of my main quarrels with the American Right (especially embodied in the current President and his administration). Fortunately, Trump's mountain of lies is established enough that I don't have to specify it here. But, perhaps the most disturbing thing along these lines is something that has happened in other Republican Administrations as well, i.e., the directives to various agencies not to tell scientific truth, ranging from various health studies to the stove-piping of "information" that sent us spiraling into the toilet of the Iraq War.

I talk too long; and I have too much work to do. So, with continued admiration for your contributions to this Board, I'll sign off.



UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

mikecohen said:

concordtom said:

SFC, you should swing over to the Off Topic forum. There's some live action there. I'm sure you could have some fun, one way or another!!!
I am an admirer of SFC's basketball knowledge and vision (and writing style). Having said that, my recollection is that his forays on the OT boardlet (assuming I'm remembering the right guy) were, from my humble point of view, very unsuccessful in that they were very serious, and very right-wing-defensive (along the lines of doom-saying of the modern world) - majorly lacking the admirable objectivity of his basketball writing, which quality, in my mind, makes him generally more credible on this side than any detractors, especially since he seems to have no qualms on this side about admitting the points of others when they have objective merit. Boy, if I ever see that coming from the American political right (I'm inclined to say something like "It'll be a cold day . . . " (in hell, is the long version).
Come on Mike. Character assassination? Is that all you've got? You are a smart guy. As long as you want to discuss my politics, I would have expected more from you. BTW, the term right-wing has little meaning today, except in the minds of leftists who want to group all Republicans into one ideological agenda. The Republican Party is comprised of conservatives, neo-conservatives, evangelical Christians, libertarians, moderates, liberals, and now nationalists. The conservatives themselves are divided into fiscal conservatives, social conservatives or both. They seldom agree on anything. They don't often support this Republican President, and some want him defeated.

You have accused me of being serious about politics, of not being objective, and in a later post, you implied that I told lies. I am more serious about politics than basketball, so I am guilty. You accuse me of not being objective, but I find no objectivity in your post, only ad hominem verbiage. You accuse me of "doom-saying of the modern world," conveniently overlooking the fact that the left attracts new voters by prospecting for new victims of the evil white men supposedly in power, and promising to take money by force from the citizens who have this money, and then giving it to the victims, minus hefty carrying charges, of course. It is the left who paints a doomsday picture, from global warming, to white men killing women, cops indiscriminately killing blacks, and so on.

My parents were democrats, and at Cal I was a liberal. I worked for the Democratic Party in charge of recruiting precinct workers in San Francisco's precincts and getting out the vote in Lyndon Johnson's election. As an engineering student, I was required to take Social Science for a year, where we read and discussed nothing but Marx, Engels, and Mao's little red book. It was indoctrination, and I fell for it. I got involved in the free speech movement, and following college I was a member of the new left. I was in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) the largest national socialist/communist student organization. My good friends were national officers of SDS. Through their influence I read leftists like Carl Oglesby, Franz Fanon, Saul Alinsky, and many more. Marty Tandler, who was the Mario Savio of the Wisconsin campus and a national officer of SDS, was my roommate in NYC. Bob Frankel was another national officer and a friend. I went to the South during the Civil Rights movement to protest segregation. I was in the anti-Vietnam war movement. My point here is that I paid my left wing dues. I know the left, I understand the left. Whatever you think you know about the left, I think I've been there and done that.

I had almost signed up with other young students to join the Venceremos Brigade to go to Cuba and cut sugar cane, and offer my services as an engineer to Castro's government, when I had a "come to Jesus moment." It was during the march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. There were 500,000 of us marching from the Lincoln Memorial to the Pentagon that day. I had met a girl, Marcie, at a party the night before, and we decided to march together. It was hot and humid, and a long march of a few miles to the Pentagon, which is out in the middle of nowhere. There was no water, no food, and no toilets. The protesters got restless and irritable in the heat. Marcie insisted on going up to the front to see what was happening. We made our way to the front, which was some steps leading up to a small plaza with the front doors of the Pentagon about 35 yards away. On either side of the steps, there were some concrete walls about 6 feet high. An armored personnel carrier was parked in the plaza. On the Pentagon roof in front of us was a .50 caliber machine gun, aimed off to one side. On a signal from an officer, about 50 soldiers armed with rifles deployed out of the vehicle, and took up positions lining up in rows on the steps in front of us. Marcie and I were standing about 4 feet from the soldiers. There were two men with bull horns perched on each of the walls to the side of us, and they began exhorting the crowd to move forward and "Take the Pentagon." These men were provocateurs, and I had no doubt they were of the far left. I had seen this so many times before in demonstrations. The crowd behind us began to push forward. The order came for the soldiers in the rows behind the first row to fix bayonets. The soldiers in front of me were young kids, only a few years younger than I, and I looked in their eyes. They were frightened and so was I. We were hemmed in, and there was no way out, and these two guys with the bull horns did not let up. It was clear, they wanted some of us to die, they wanted some martyrs for the publicity it would bring. Then the order came, and the two soldiers on the roof swung the .50 caliber machine gun around and pointed it right at us. Marcie was freaking out, and I was sure we were going to die.

Just at that moment, some hippies with signs somehow managed to get into the Pentagon by a side door, and began running back and forth in the foyer shouting, "Where's the war room? Where's the war room?" The soldiers started to laugh at them, and then the crowd started laughing, and in a matter of a minute or less, the whole situation had defused into nothing, and we all turned around and walked back to town. I looked around and the two guys with the bull horns had disappeared. I wanted to wring their necks. They probably got their wish, however, because not long after that march, there was another demonstration at Kent State, the national guard killed three students, which led directly to the US pulling out of Vietnam, ending the war. That could have been me, killed because two leftists wanted martyrs for their cause.

I became apolitical after that for many years. Later as we began to learn of all the suppression by communist regimes, the atrocities, and the executions, many for just speaking against some words, I took notice. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and several others were all butchers. 100 million murdered, by some estimates. That is the trouble with the left, and their revolutions, which enables a strong man to take over during the upheaval created. All the communist governments have failed or are failing, except those that incorporate some capitalism. Now I read Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Walter Williams, Bill Buckley, Thomas Sowell, Paul Johnson, Dennis Prager, and many more. For race, I depend on the speeches and writings of Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass. Considering what I've seen in life, I think I'm qualified to describe what I've seen of both right and left and the various groups that make up both, and be objective about it. I may not be right, but I do try and be objective. I consider myself a classic liberal, in the mold of Locke, or Pat Moynihan. And as such right now I find I have more in common with true conservatives than I do with anything I hear on the left. You think I tell lies, just listen to any daily newscast, and you will hear multiple lies from the left every day.

If you want to discuss issues, fine. If you want to trade ad hominem attacks, you can count me out. All leftists are more skilled at it than I am.






SFCity:

A very well-reasoned post with a lot of meat on the bones. Much better IMO than the previous one I responded to in which you accused "the left" of destroying everything (marriage, sex, the economy, the university, etc.). I was troubled by that one, since you've always been a stickler for words meaning just what they say, and I find it hard to accept the idea that all of these thing have been totally destroyed. To take marriage, for instance: people are still getting married; the same percentage as always appear to have "happy" marriages (mine is going on 39 years) and the divorce rate is high but stable. I know you aren't a bigot, so I assume you aren't saying that because gays and lesbians can now marry that somehow the institution is ruined.

We share a history: both raised in SF in the 50's, both attended Cal around the same time (as an aside, I had thought you graduated before the FSM in 1964; my bad). And FWIW, I was at the same demonstration in DC, although no where near the front. The difference is that I remain a "leftist," although I prefer the term "liberal," as you do conservative. I certainly agree that there have been and continue to be excesses on the left, but I firmly believe that globally today we have more to fear from the extreme right. You are correct that communism has failed (USSR, Eastern Europe), is failing (Cuba, Venezuela), or is no longer recognizable as communist (China, Vietnam). But the rise of racist, anti-Semitic regimes throughout the world is a greater danger today, IMO. Consider Erdogan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary, Duda in Poland, Dutarte in Philippines, Putin in Russia, and the rise of the racist parties in France, Greece, Netherlands, even the UK. These are all wannabe fascists and explicit about it. I do not lump Trump into that group, btrw, because he's too self-centered and unbalanced to have a coherent philosophy.

If I may be permitted a bit of historical speculation, it seems to me that there is a kind of Hegelian pendulum that swings left and right, and whenever it reaches the apex, there is danger in the world. After WWI, there was a rise of democracy world-wide, but the lack of stable institutions and economic woes led to the rise of fascism everywhere with success in Portugal, Spain, Japan, Italy, and of course, Germany. After the war, the inequality that persisted led to the rise of the left which probably reached it's apex world-wide in 1968. Now we have the swing back to the right--with a vocal and strident left-wing minority (I know, you can argue that the left is a majority on campuses, but that has always been the case and for the most part campuses are irrelevant to the larger polity). Right now, there is stridence on both sides and very little honest debate. You point to the left as engaging in ad hominem. I would counter with Donald Trump and his nicknames,Sean Hannity or Alex Jones and his not-so-thinly veiled anti-Semitism, or Steven King of Iowa and his racist attacks, etc. Lots of noise, little content.

An historical correction: there were 4 killed at Kent State, not 3 (and 5 killed at Jackson State, although no one seemed to care about that, perhaps because Jackson State is an HBC). I don't believe, however, that Kent State led directly to the end of the war. It was in May of 1970, and the US didn't pull out of Vietnam until 1973 and the war didn't end until 1975. Plus, a sizable majority of Americans approved of the shootings at Kent State.

Anyway,sorry not to engage in any ad hominem; I'll try better next time (just kidding).

Nice chatting with you.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hi Connor Vanover, welcome to Cal! Hopefully, you knew "Cal" and "Berkeley" are one and the same, right? Well, if you didn't, you do now.

Well, so you're reading this thread about yourself and you get to this third page and you're probably thinking... well, hard for me to say what you might be thinking, but hopefully you still want to come here.

Cal's a great place! Lots of passion about lots of things. Basketball, too, starting again this Fall! Whatever any of our political leanings might be, we'll all be cheering for you and the rest of the guys.

Go Bears!
Fyght4Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for your post. Your experience is instructive. If you will allow, I want to pose a question about that day at the Pentagon.

Given what we now know about the government's infiltration of "leftist" movements, from the Civil Rights Movement to the environmental movement to the Occupy movement to all of those in between, including infiltration of places of worship to suborn terrorist plots, isn't it possible that those two provocateurs with bullhorns were government agents seeking to create the kind of violence that would undermine the anti-war movement?

🎵There’s the Highland Dutch and the Lowland Dutch
The Rotterdam Dutch and Tim DeRuyter 🎶
south bender
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My friend SFCB is painting the "left" with too broad a brush, while accusing the "left" of this same mistake.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
south bender said:

My friend SFCB is painting the "left" with too broad a brush, while accusing the "left" of this same mistake.

Wait, what? Are you suggesting SFCB is showing hypocritical tendencies?! Say it ain't so!
south bender
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No, CB, that is your shtick in your attacks on SFCB...

I would prefer to say ain't none of us who is perfectly rational in all of his posts here and elsewhere.

I will add that I really enjoy many of yours that are on other subjects.
MSaviolives
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Any time you are lumped into "The Left" or "The Right," and damned with some associated generality, you know you are not having a productive conversation. The same is true if you are lumped into "you people" or as part of someone's "ilk."
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear fyght: 1% possible: 99% not possible. The left did the same thing with the JFK assassination. They were so embarrassed by the obvious connections that Oswald had with the soviets and Cuba that they began to plant the fake news that perhaps Oswald was really a CIA plant to make Russia, cuba and the Left look bad. preposterous then---preposterous now. you can reason with civil liberals. You cannot reason with the hard-core left. Too many psychological layers to peel back and refute.
Page 3 of 4
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.