Elston Gunnn

With trepidation, I'll take a chance at giving you a serious answer about an enormously controversial issue: abortion. Allow me first to refer you back to my post #518, itself a response to a couple of Mirallas's comments about the election. I myself have great difficulty thinking through the gut-wrenching issue of abortion. It is more than merely irritating that there's relatively little focus on birth control (of which abstinence "programs" should not be option # 1,2, or 3) and adoption. It's perhaps fair (again, trepuidation here) to say that a " middle" position on abortion is the phrase, "safe, legal, and rare." Pro-choice people insist especially on the "safe and legal," and generally avoid the "rare" part. The fiercest pro-life people probably utterly reject "safe, legal, and rare," suspecting that "safe and legal" means that abortion will not become rare. And in any case, even "rare" is unacceptable to one who sees abortion as murder. So, as to the "big secret" of abortion as "hidden genocide," we know that many abortions are performed in many countries. One who counts a single abortion as murder will perhaps, and perhaps not reluctantly, employ the loaded word "genocide" to characterize the undeniable fact that abortions are regularly performed. Although I (think I) understand the term "hidden genocide," I don't advise its use, for what must be obvious reasons. I do advise far more focus on common-sense, non-moralistic sex education, birth control, and adoption. And sex education most definitely - I would insist urgently - includes de-mythification of the misleading, unscientific phrase, "moment of conception."

I take Mirallas's point in his several posts above to refer to abortion. I infer, though I may well be oversimplying his views, that most, perhaps literally all, other issues are in comparison "trivial." I don't know absolutely for certain whether Trump is "as bad as he's made out to be." But I described him in my post above as a "sociopathic near-fascist" with multiple "ugly views." I can define a "sociopath," and Trump exactly fits the several characteristics of a sociopath. I can list 7 or 8 characteristics of historical fascism, and Trump's campaign absolutely appealed to all those characteristics. For me, even "sociopathic near-fascist" only begins to describe Trump's appalling character, personal history, and campaign. But if one sees the abortion issue as literally more important than all other issues - domestic, foreign, financial, cultural, economic, military, international, etc. - then clearly Trump's promise to put forth conservative justices who may help overturn Roe v. Wade will require one to celebrate Trump's victory over fervently pro-choice Clinton.

Agree with Keithb18 here. A hate-filled, reckless decision, electing a sociopathic near-fascist. A man who has cheated virtually everyone with whom he has done business. One can speculate that this is a result of profound alienation, so profound that Trump voters don't care what Trump says. But my guess is that some significant numbers of his voters absolutely agree with his ugly views, with every ugly thing he says.

Barry out on yellow card accumulation for Swansea match. And McCarthy's status is uncertain, with or without the ROI complication. So maybe either Cleverley or Davies will partner Gana. Like you and probably others, I'd want Koeman to give Davies a chance.

Though a left-handed compliment, Davies was easily our best player. He actually played with some control and confidence. Most of the others were just awful.

Chelsea's passing is so much better than ours. Crisp, accurate, giveaways rare. High quality professional.

Thought Williams got head or shoulder to it. Maybe not.

Jagielka still has some pace. Good hustle. Not good to get a yellow for dissent.

Decent ball in from Barkley, disappointing several of our players offside.

Chelsea waltzing through, 2-0. Pedro perhaps interfered on first goal, but Stekelenburg didn't look good on either goal.

Bolasie yellow, not smart this early.

Remembrance Day, end of WWI, red poppies, blood spilled, Flanders

Hard to guess whether Koeman will be thinking to "build on momentum" by making only one change, starting (presumably) Cleverley for the missing Gana. Possibly Stekelenburg, too. Or, whether he will be thinking that away to Chelsea presents an entirely different challenge, requiring a few tactical replacements. I prefer the second option, and something like this. Robles/Stekelenburg Jagielka Williams Funes Mori Coleman Cleverley Barry Oviedo Lennon Barkley Lukaku Coleman and Oviedo had strong performances against WHam, so keep them in, now as wingbacks who offer both attacking and defending promise. Coleman is perhaps less effective than we'd prefer on crosses, but he's actually a real threat to score a goal (as is Funes Mori on corners). Cleverley seems the only logical change from Gana, and is nearly as energetic. As to the final spot, the third attacking player, Koeman has 4 options, of whom Bolasie is probably the most likely, and Mirallas next most likely. I'd be interested in seeing Lennon, instead, as he'd be much more likely than Bolasie, Mirallas, or Deulofeu to harass the Chelsea backline for 50-60 minutes. Although hoping to steal 3, I think the reality is that taking a point would also be a steal.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Hope this is the right thread for this important news. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/31/everton-to-pay-staff-living-wage

Video stop-motion on US tv seemed to show onside. Both commentators said onside. My quick glance of stop-motion told me it was onside, but I wanted it to be onside, so ..... Maybe I'll see it again in stop-motion on US MOTD later tonight over here.

Koeman said on prematch that it was his foot. Didn't say how serious. With international break approaching, Koeman may have another tiff brewing with another international manager, as Stekelenburg is Netherlands #1.

I voted for Robles, but I understand he's more likely to be most people's 3d or 4th choice. Thought Lukaku, Barkley, Coleman, Oviedo were effective today. Oddly, both Barry and Gana had some poor moments today, weak pass-giveaways.

Agree, mostly. Our first 25 minutes were dismal. After that, much more energetic, purposeful. My only complaint overall is the number of basic passes we fail to complete. Still, I could see voting for 4 or 5 different players for MOTM.

No. Koeman referred to foot problem.

In his pre-match interview, Koeman said Jagielka goes to bench to "keep him fresh," suggesting some occasional rotation among the 3 main center halves. Maybe a diversion from Jagielka not playing well enough, but I'm happy to see him give Funes Mori a chance. He also referred to "3 midfielders," suggesting Barkley playing back a bit, with Mirallas and Bolasie closer to Lukaku.

The fundamental, elementary question is whether we have players who are consistently good enough to challenge for top 6. I have been worried about this for awhile, and yesterday did nothing but confirm my concerns. Only Bolasie, Barry, and Gana showed much in the way of consistently solid play. Not perfect, these 3, but solid. The other outfield players had occasional good moments, but no consistency. Barkley, about whom I harbor deep skepticism, had that wonderful strike early in the match, but otherwise generally just slowed down our attack with his infuriating over-dribbling. He's more consistently frustrating than consistently effective. For me, one moment symbolized the unnerving possibility that our players just aren't quite good enough. It was in the second half when Mirallas had an opportunity to cross it from the left to Lukaku for a tap-in. It was a basic -- not totally easy, but basic -- cross, where the correct placement would have produced an easy goal. But Mirallas's pass had too much pace, and so skipped just beyond Lukaku. Not the right pace. Basic. Just one moment of failure, and by no means was Mirallas the only player to get it not quite right in basic ways.

I suppose someday Stones may be a fine defender, but not these days, and not today v. Barca. He's looked positively lost several times today. As I and others have said before, he may be an elegant (looking?) player, but his basic defending is basically undependable, on occasion just awful.

Less than a minute in, and Deulofeu is already offside.

Have to hold my hand up and admit I've thought Oviedo a decent player, occasional starter, though better at LW than LB. But today, he's totally outclassed, in talent, energy, know-how. Most irritating is the he's been moved off the ball by a player whose strength is not his strength. We've had 3 good counter-attack opportunities, but in each case stymied by our own awful passing. Just basic passing, poor. Deulofeu offside when looking straight across the line at defenders. Pathetic.