philibusters

Ultimately I think both Guyton and Paul are developmental Tackle Prospects. Both have the physical tools to succeed, but need a good amount of polish before they are ready to be quality starters (with no guarantee that they will ever get that polish). But I definitely wouldn't trade up to get Guyton when I am confident I am get Paul at 40 if I want him.

i am on the Drake Maye bandwagon, though I am not particularly confident. I am not a QB evaluator and I know it. That doesn't stop me from having a take, but it does stop me from taking my take all that seriously.

I think you are right. There are rumors on the internet (see link) that when Minnesota approached Arizona about trading 11 and 23 plus maybe some change for 4, Arizona said they would only trade for 3 first rounders. Under most trade charts 11 and 23 only equal number 4 (under the Jimmy Johnson trade chart 11 and 23 are worth 2010 points vs 4 being worth 1800 points). Thus Arizona's positions seems to be that we are taking Marvin Harrison unless somebody is willing to overpay by an entire first round pick. If somebody is willing to overpay by that much, we'll do business with you, other wise , we are sitting put...

I linked to TheFranchiseGuy video and he was a fan (See the 21:20 mark of the video). Also Ramon Foster who talked very intelligently about tackle prospect wasn't as high on him. He definitely has the size and strength. I think his foot speed is bad and he chose not to run or do any of the testing at the combine or pro day so I think it likely wouldn't be good. I feel like Mims is even bigger and way more athletic. Granted Mims has a much smaller sample size as a player. That said, Latham only recently turned 21, does have that amazing size and power, and had a 82 PFF grade last year and a 76 PFF grade as a 19 year sophomore so I don't have a problem with putting him #2. For me though he would rank 6th, but 340 pounds, 35 inch arms, 21 years old with a decent sample size of good play, I see where you are coming from.

Some of my draft takes at WR, T, CB, and Edge WR: I agree with the the top three consensus of Harrison Jr., Nabers, and Odunze. The guy I am significantly lower on than the consensus on this board is Brian Thomas Jr. and it was the PFF NFL podcast that covinced me (link below). Here are some worrisome stats on him--36% drop rate (meaning 64% of draftable prospects had a better drop rate than him). The raw stat was his drop rate was slightly over 10%. Yes, some of that is because he has a relatively high percent of downfield throws, but you compare that to other guys like Nabers, Odunze, and Harrison who also get a lot of downfield throws and they have better drop rates. He has is the 97% for accurate passes. That is the surprising stat. Given how many downfield passes he gets targeted with, one would expect that to be below 50%. And that speaks to Jayden Daniels accuracy. But it also means his yards after the catch should probably be a little better and his drop rate a little lower. I am definitely higher on Thomas than you Steve and Sam but I am definitely not trading both my second rounders to get him. Two WR's I like maybe a little more than consensus or Ladd McConkey and Ricky Pearsell. Both those guys are very much in play for me at 36 and 40. T: The Franchise Guy Youtube video on his top 10 tackles and an interview with Ramon Foster (the former Pittsburgh Steeler guard) on the PFF podcast are kind of driving my Tackle thoughts. My first tier at Tackle is Alt, Fashanu, Mims, Fuaga, and Fantanu. I would probably rank them in that order. I don't think Alt is ever an elite player. I think he may be able to get beat with a power occasionally, but he is very technically sound and very high effort gives him the highest floor. Fashanu has the best feet and could be an elite pass protector, but he has technique issues in both pass blocking and run blocking. The pass blocking technique issues didn't kill him in college, but they will hurt him in the NFL and to become an elite pass protector he is going to have to clean them up and that likely won't be instantly. His run blocking technique is bad and maybe the meaning/tenacity is not always there in run blocking and he is going to be a weak run blocker. Mims has the highest upside of all the tackles in my opinion. Size and great athleticism for his size. Good tape. Does give up some counter inside moves, but very high ceiling prospect. After thinking about I would trade both of our seconds to grab him at 18 or 19. I would also trade both our seconds for Fantanu. His upside is not Mims, but he has the second highest floor behind Alt. Very balanced player. Only 6'3.5 but with 34.5 inch arms you not overly worried about the height and he has good feet. Not a ton of power as a run blocker, but good athleticism and good tenacity as a run blocker. Fuaga strikes me a RT only and therefore I am less interested, but love his run blocking and decent pass protector. Worth a mid first round pick. Among the second tier guys, Blake Fisher is the one I think who is the most undervalued and yes I am taking that take mainly from teh Franchise Guys video, but I agreed with his reasoning. I dug into his PFF profile to verify taht his play is solid over the past two season. He just had his 21st birthday a few weeks ago. Sub 5.2 forty time, 6'6 315 pounds, and 34.375 inch arms. I think he should be in play at 36 and 40, though where I think he would be a great value is at 67. Corner: Like a lot of people I got Quinyon Mitchell first. My second tier consists of Nate Wiggins, the two Alabama corners, and Cooper DeJean. I think the order there depends on what you want. Nate Wiggins is the high ceiling guy, who is film is good not great, and who has some injuries injuries. The two Alabama corners are both good, but both are 4.5 guys, neither has great size, so their ceilings are probably not elite, and DeJean is probably best as a slot corner or safety. If playing outside he has stiff hips and cannot close on routes great, so he is probably really only good outside if in press coverage. Two guys that intrigue me or Kamari Lassiter and Andru Phillips. From multiple sources he has good college tape. But he ran a 4.65 forty which means he needs to play off coverage in the NFL. His PFF GAS numbers (his in game tracking numbers) are better but not great either. His limiting factor will be his athleticism. Phillips is a well rounded corner with good, not great athleticism. A 4.48 forty is not that impressive, but a good 10 yard split 1.51, good agility numbers, and good GAS numbers indicate he may have the athleticism to be a good man corner. 5'11 190 pounds. Decent, but not good PFF score this past season (72). I am definitely interested in Phillips at 67 or 78. Mike Sainristil is a guy I like and who is a viable option at 36 and 40. I think he is a better prospect than Phillips, but I don't think he will be there at 67 and I think his best spot is slot corner rather than outside corner. Our top two outside corenrs now are Forbes and St. Juste. At slot we have a number of options including one (Martin) that I am still optimistic about, so I am not as high on Sainristil and probably wouldn't take him at 36 or 40. Edge: I am a Latu guy. That said of the guys who would be options at 36 or 40, Chop Robinson, Darius Robinson, Jonah Ellis, and Chris Braswell, I think all four are worthy of a pick at 36 or 40. I like the two Robinsons the most of the four, though I suspect, neither will be there at 36 I am not sure either one are guys I would trade up. That said if they are there are 36, they would be good picks. Jonah Ellis has an amazing family pedigree with like 2 or 3 brothers in the NFL as his tape is good. He faltered down the stretch, but he was playing injured down the stretch. Braswell underwhelms me, but he balanced. Between Braswell and Ellis it really depends on scheme. At 246 pounds I am worried about Ellis size and strength against the run, but if its more of a 3-4 system, I think he is fine as an outside LB. If playing in more of a 4-3 I prefer Braswell. I think Booker, Isaac, Kneeland, and Trice would be viable options in the 67 or 78 spot.

I agree that renewables are very important to the future. But that they have a ton of drawbacks. First they are just not as reliable as fossil fuels. When France got rid of its nuclear power they thought it would mostly be made up through renewables. It hasn't. It wasn't made up for with fossil fuels. Why? Because France was less windy and more cloudy than anticipated in the years following the transition. 30 years ago there was a hope that batteries could be developed that could store the excess energy renewables produced when it was sunny or windy, but the battery hasn't developed as quickly as hoped and may still be 50 years away (kind of like self-driving cars it seemed close, but then it wasn't). Second, renewables have their own bad environmental consequences. It is not 100% clear to me over the long term they are more environmentally friendly than nuclear. For example in order to generate a large amount of power they need to take up a lot of space. Now if you are near a desert where it sunny and sometimes windy and the land is not that useable, that is an easy requirement to hit. But in crowded urban areas, there really is not enough room to put solar and wind farms. Likewise solar panels use a lot of fairly rare metals that require a lot of mining. Some of these metals can be toxic, so like nuclear waste you have to figure out what to do with them after the solar panels die (panel may have a 30 year life). Without doubt as the renewable technology gets better and as battery technology gets better renewables will be the wave of the future. There is no doubt about that. But as I said I think environmentalist messed up big time back in the 1950's and 1960's advocating for fossil fuels over nuclear and I think some continue to make the same mistake today.

Explaining the picks: 2. Preference for Maye over Daniels. I see Daniels as probably better in year 1 with his running ability and better throwing footwork, but Maye as the better long term pick. 36. I went with McConkey because he was the best player on my list of guys. I made a list of 11 guys that I was considering at 36 at four positions. They were WR: McConkey, Burton, Pearsell, Leggett--T Suamataia, Fisher, Amegadjee-- Edge: Braswell and Ellis and CB: Lassiter, Rakestraw, Phillips. My tops guys at each of those positions were McConkey, Suamataia, Braswell, and Lassiter so I ended up picking amongst those four. Just felt the most confident about McConkey. 40. If Suamataia had still been on the board I probably I would have gone with him, but he came off the board in this mock draft in the three picks between 36 and 40. I did consider Fisher, but I saw that on PFF's board he was rated like 70, so I figured there was a reasonable chance to get him at 67. Because I just took a WR I wasn't going to take another. Thus it became between Braswell and Lassiter. I felt like Braswell plays a more premium position and is probably a slightly safer pick. I don't love Braswell, doubt he is ever a great pass rusher, but he is balanced. He is solid against the run and pass. Not a dynamic pass rusher, but can win in a couple ways. I feel like Lassiter maybe had higher upside as he was probably a better college player than Braswell, but 4.6 speed for a outside corner probably means you can only use him in off coverage and we already have a player like that in Forbes. Close call. 67. No brainer. I think Blake Fisher is an underrated prospect. Only a true junior, decent combine numbers, decent film. I feel like he is less of a project than Amegadjee, who was already off the board at this point (but who I would have picked Fisher over). Maybe not a high ceiling pick, but decent floor and definitely could be a starting tackle in the NFL. I think he could project as a Charles Leno type player (more than serviceable), that is a slightly optimistic projection, but still realistic in my opinion. 78. Also a no brainer, I like Andru Phillips, but really like him at 78. I gave him some consideration at 36 and 40 though wasn't realistically going to take him there, but felt very comfortable taking him at 67. Of the 11 guys I listed as candidates at 36, he was the only still on the board at 78. Good athleticism and scheme versatility (can play zone, press man, off man), I felt lucky he was still on the board though rated as teh 80 prospect, I did kind of have in the back of my mind when I picked Braswell at 40 that I could possibly get Fisher at 67 and Phillips at 78 based on their PFF rankings. 100: Tommy Eichenberg--I am not going to lie after a couple no brainers in my opinion, I did have some regrets after hitting the draft button on Eichenberg. I didn't want to take a player at one of the 5 positions I already taken one at so I was looking at interior O-Lineman, Linebackers, Running Backs, and Tight Ends. And there was no player that stood out. Considered Sinnot the TE, Bebbe the Offensive Guard, but went with Eichenberg. They immediately questioned my choice. The quandary of having no obvious choice. 139: Javon Foster: At this point I was willing to double up on a position. I like Blake Fisher more than Javon Foster, but do think Foster is worth a flier at this point. I did check to see if Bebbe was on the board, but he was gone by this point. I forgot to check if Ben Sinnot was still available. That would have been a difficult choice, but due to poor process I didn't have to make that choice. 152. Theo Johnson: At this point I felt like I had addressed most of needs. TE is not a glaring need, but I don't know if I am sold on any of our younger options so I'll add another one to that group. I think Theo Johnson is decent value at this point in the draft too. Would have preferred Sinnot but he was off the board at this point. 222. I didn't spend much time on this pick. I figured I would pick up a RB at this point. None of the guys on the board were players I knew much about so it was kinda of picking blind. I considered the Ohio State running back, the RB from South Dakota St, and Ali from Marshall. I probably heard the most hype a about Ali, but admit this was just a shot in the dark as I am not particularly informed on any of the three.

I definitely don't understand why some environmentalists still continue to dis-like nuclear so much other than they learned it from their parents. I think the position was more justifiable in 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's when there was no understanding of global warming and hence people didn't factor in carbon emissions and when the design of nuclear powerplants was less sophisicated and there was more potential for a disaster. On the other hand back then, coal was the most common fuel source and it burned less cleanly than say natural gas which is a lot more common today. But yeah, environmentalist in France got their country to back up off nuclear like 10 years ago and of course their carbon emissions went up afterwardsd.

If I am trading our two second rounders to get back into the first round I think the guys I would consider are Brock Bowers, Olu Fashanu, Troy Fantanu, Laiatu Latu, Quinyon Mitchell. I would also consider a lesser trade, maybe 36 and 67 to get into the late first round if a player like Amarius Mims.

It seems like you are high on Brian Thomas. The NFL PFF podcast hate as both those hosts don't have him the first round. They think he is a deep threat only guy (and routes that work off the deep route like comebacks). He doesn't have a lot of short or immediate route running skills so those will have to be developed. They think his drop percentage is a bit too high for him to be an elite deep threat. They don't hate him, but they both have him more in that 8-10 range. How do you see him? He is a rich mans Quan Martin. Probably best as a safety or slot corner, but does have the ability to play on the outside. If you play him on the outside you probably want him in press coverage. He could be a versatile piece. An outside corner in a bump and run situations and a slot corner on off coverage.

I am going to buy into whoever we chose because I am not an expert and I am going to trust our front office, but I definitely like Maye at the second pick.

For the past four years he has gotten starter reps and the two years before that he got 600 to 700 snaps so like 3rd corner snaps. So there is a decent sample size. During those 6 seasons, his best PFF grade was the 2022 season when he had a 72.7 grade. His lowest PFF grade was 2021 when he had a 54.0 grade. So all 6 years he was between a 54 and 72.7. His natural variation seems to be year where he has good variation he is a mid level starter, an ideal #2 corner. His weaker seasons he is a low level starter who verges on being quality depth. If you average out the past 6 years, he averages out to a low level starter. Maybe what you expect out of your third corner.

I read a book called The Perfect Pass about how Hal Mumme and his O-Line Coach and later OC Mike Leach developed the Air Raid. I don't know if a pure Air Raid system could be effective in the NFL. It was mostly built upon simplicity and being able to outexecute the defense. It only had like a dozen pass plays and about 5 runs and the plays were not reversible. Now in the early days it was not clear to DC's that there were only a dozen pass plays because all 12 pass plays had at least one option route and sometimes up to three receivers had option routes, so if you are just watching game tape it seems like a lot more than 12 pass plays. But Mumme teams just repped those 12 pass plays over and over and over and it was about out-executing the defense. It adopted tricks to keep the defense vanilla (it was arguably the first system to really use tempo--a bunch of offenses by the early 1990's including a couple NFL offenses were using the no huddle offense, but they were still only snapping the ball with maybe 15 seconds on the play clock whereas Mumme's team snapped the ball with between 20 to 25 seconds on the playclock much like a true two minute offense)--and the QB called the play at the LOS on most plays--and the tempo offense worked because there were only 12 plays to choose from and they repped them all so often they knew them really well--it was also one of the first offenses to just let the QB make the playcall at the line (you cannot play tempo as fast if the OC is calling the play). The system was also an early adopter of the shotgun. But the key to understand about the Air Raid's success as a pure system is that it worked because the offense outexecuted the defense. Because there were only 12 plays and they practiced the heck out of the 12 plays, they could outexecute the defense. Especially in college, where practice time is maybe half as much as in the NFL (I made up that number, but NFL teams can get in more practice than college teams), that was enough. I don't know if that simplicity would work in the NFL. NFL defenses can execute at a high level. That said, most of the Air Raid plays, such as Mesh, Y-Sail, et cetera are in the NFL playbooks. So NFL has incorporated the 12 or so passing plays from the Air Raid, without picking up some of the other key aspects of the system like the Tempo and simplicity.

I think Forbes is a much better prospect than Noah Igbinoghene. Noah Igbinoghene highest PFF grade in 4 seasons is 52.2. Forbes had a 50.9 last year so whether he can become a starter remains a question, but Igbinoghene is probably the last corner on your team who makes it due to special teams if he makes it at all. He was a developmental prospect that didn't really develop. He was only 20 years at the start of his rookie season with decent physical tools. But he is a case in point of why it can be dangerous to take players who were not great in college and assume you can mold them in the NFL in the first round. Day 2 it makes sense, but day 1, it is a gamble. A gamble that did not pay off in Miami's case.

Ultimately I agree with your point that nuclear is not going to be an answer for anything in the next 10 years, maybe even 15 years. I don't know the details of nuclear power plants and if there is such a thing as a cookie cutter design. I watched an interview though where they asked what went wrong with one of the plants that was scrapped because it was so far behind and over cost and the answer was it was a new design that had never been built before and maybe not a great design at that. The person being interviewed said if they had followed the design of a plant already built they would have avoided most of the delays and over costs. That said I support nuclear power as a long term investment. Once it is operational it safe and does not pollute the environment. Looking at the long term natural gas while the cleanest of fossil fuels is still a fossil fuel that is still going to contribute to global warming and while natural gas has an abundant supply for next few generations it is still a finite resource that will eventually exhaust.

No matter it is going to probably take around 10 years to get a plant online. I believe if they just went with cookie cutters designs that have already been used before rather than trying to improve it and build something innovative, you can avoid the disaster that happened in Georgia with the costs overruns and super slow progress. You never want to discourage innovation, but if new designs are risky, go with a cookie cutter design. I think some of the failures of the past 20 years of nuclear power could have been avoided with that strategy.

PFF gave a Williams a 59 grade last year. That indicates a low end starter/high end back up. However, in his four year career that was the lowest grade Williams ever had and two of the four years he has had grades above 70. So it depends on how much emphasis you put into the most recent results vs the entire sample size. If you look at the entire smaple size you could say he is a mid level starter, but if you just look at last year, he is probably a lateral from Wylie and downgrade from Leno.

I think other than QB's it almost always the non-exclusive. You get to pay marginally less by using the non-exclusive and if another team signs the player they have to give you two first rounders. Now for a franchise QB, I think a team would absolutely give up two first rounders, but for any other position, unless its like the best player in the league at that position (Myles Garrett or Justin Jefferson), you probably don't have to worry about other signing the player because the two first rounders is just too expensive. Brian Burns is very good, but he is not Myles Garrett and its unlikely a team would be willing to give up to first rounder's to sign him (though you never know, supposedly the Rams offered two first rounders for him at one point but that was when he still had a couple years on his rookie deal).

That is a bummer. I kind of associate Chris Mortensen and the late John Clayton with ESPN football reporting during the aughts.

You make a lot of good points. Without knowing the numbers, there is going to be some speculation involved, but I think most of the more expensive DEI programs don't justify their costs. As an example, lets say flagship state university spends 10 million on its DEI department (which is probably a fairly normal number, though some like Cal Berkley will drop 36 million on it and others probably spend 2 or 3 million on it). Lets say every class there are 2000 minority students the program is designed to help. If it produces a 10% graduation rate in that population, that is an additional 200 minority students the college is graduating that year. 10 million divided 200 equals $50,000. That is a lot of money to spend to get a student to graduation. I do think in the coming years we will see minorities graduation rates go up. I think some of it is likely due to DEI programs. I also think some of that will be due to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action. I think minority students will be slightly better matched academically to the schools they attend which will create slightly better graduation rates. I think both sides will claim credit for it and I think both sides will be partially correct. In regards to DEI programs making people feel like they belong...I think that is a goal at the most expensive DEI programs. I think state flagships spending 4 or 5 million on DEI are probably focused on fairly practically goals like making sure minority students get the support they need to graduate. I think some of the elite universities that have money to spend (Cal Berkeley 36 million, Michigan 30 million) are spending that money hoping for more. They are essentially trying to create support groups for their minority students, giving them safe places and events for only minorities. I think is likely where you see money getting the least bang for the buck. I do think you are right that there likely are DEI programs that are decent investments from the university's perspective, but they are probably the less expensive (say 4 or 5 million dollar per year programs ) that are focused on practical results. I think DEI programs have the same problem that administrative staffs in general have and that is they tend to protect their own interests. Even before DEI, college administrative staffs were growing at an alarming record and we hear of the same problem in other settings where the business can push some costs to consumers (such as at hospitals who people feel have administrative staffs that are too large to give you much bang for your buck). So I kind of see the DEI debate within that bigger debate to some degree.

My instinct and I may be wrong is that eliminating all DEI positions is probably a net positive rather than net negative. Admittedly I don't think Florida has overdone DEI in the same way that some of the top schools have. For example, the University of Michigan has 241 DEI staffers and is spending 30 million a year on the DEI department. Cal Berkeley is spending 36 million per year on their DEI department of about 200 staffers. So this is a lot of money and this is tax payer money and the schools are not getting much return on investment. For example Texas A&M is spending 12 million per year on DEI and their black students self reported sense of belonging declined from 82% in 2015 to 55% in 2024. Sometimes having separate spaces for minority students can be nice for them in the short term, but can decrease their sense of belonging in the long term. People complain about the cost of education going up and up and a lot of it not being due to paying professors more, but due to the increase of administrative staffing and DEI is the number 1 driver of that in the last 10 years. If it was a game changer for minority students then I think it would be worth it, but in general minority students sense of belonging has decreased since the spending on DEI has gone up. That is not to say none of these DEI programs are accomplishing anything. I am sure some are doing very productive work and others are accomplishing very little. Like a lot of things, probably the leadership at the top of these departments sets the tone and goes a long way in determining how productive these departments are. I also don't think Florida's policy of eliminating all DEI positions is necessarily a smart policy. Perhaps they was a way to just fund less of these positions. I feel like these scenarios should not be an all or nothing: Spend 36 million at one school like Cal Berkeley or spend nothing like Florida. Probably the best bang for the buck lies somewhere in the middle ground (though perhaps closer to Florida's position). Finally it is important to realize there is a political dynamic. Conservatives are going to dislike these departments because they are going to strongly lean left. And these departments can in some cases lean very left (say at some California schools) where there are a lot of left wing activists in the DEI departments. That doesn't mean the departments are not accomplishing anything, but in does mean conservatives will have a bullseyes on them in the same way leftists are going to really hate institutions that provide a lot of jobs and patronage to conservative activists.

I think scientists probably communicate their findings somewhat effectively. I feel that its the media and activists that are more likely to communicate things ineffectively. For example, the media loves a good headline and will tend to catastrophize findings. Like if a report looked at four scenarios ranging from most mild to most severe, the media story is going to focus on the worst case scenario. Overtime this has made the climate change stories lose creditability. I was in college from 2001 to 2005 and I remember hearing lots of stories and believing them in college that if we didn't do such and such by 2010 this terrible thing would happen and if we didn't do this by 2015, this would happen. A lot of bad stuff has happened over the last year 20 years, but almost none of the worse case scenarios have come in to play so these catastrophizing media reports have lost credibility. Second and this again falls more on activists than on the scientists, the refusal of some activists to consider things like nuclear energy makes me think things are not as bad as they seem. I get that there are some risk with nuclear energy, but nuclear energy emits no pollution in the air (whether that be greenhouse gases or other pollutants). Ultimately green energy is going to be the main clean source of energy but in nuclear can be a good supplement and be the main source in areas without a lot of wind or sun. There is no doubt that green technology has not progressed as fast as we hoped 30 years ago. I think people thought 30 years ago battery technology would improve so we could capture say surplus energy during the daylight when it sunny on solar farms and use it at night when there is no sunlight to capture--that hasn't happened, I think people thought the technology for solar panels would increase faster so we would be to capture more energy in any given unit of area than we currently are for example. The techonology will improve but its not where we needs it to be. So when activists are like "no nuclear" it just makes me think that they have a hidden agenda. For example they are not only worried about global warming but they are naturalists (though solar farms and windfarms take up a lot of space so if that was their hidden agenda at best they would likely be breaking even with nuclear). Likewise when activists immediately deny the potential of carbon capture technology that seems suspicious to me. I do realize carbon capture technology is probably decades away from having any significant effect on climate change, but I think it is something that can still be looked into. None of this probably really changes the opinions of vocal climate change denialists. But there are a lot of reasonably people out there who can be persuaded. And if the media and activists are worried about really opinionated climate change denialists they are focused on persuading the wrong people. They cannot be persuaded no matter what evidence or dire the scenarios. But reasonably people can be persuaded.

I am terrible at reading women. I am married now so I don't have to worry about it, but before I was married I never felt confident I could tell flirting from being friendly. So I sympathize with you.

Medicaid is a hybrid federal and state program. Essentially the feds cover about two-thirds of the cost and the state covers the remaining one-third. I think its usually a bad idea for the states to opt out as they as turning down free money, but I do think they should have the option to opt because the federal government should not be able to make the states spend money they didn't agree to spend.

Last four books I have read over the last four or so months 1. The American Cultural Revolution by Chris Rufo: I have not completed this book, about half way through. I am enjoying it so far, but its reinforcing my existing tastes. Rufo is a conservative pundit who is best known for his attacks on CRT. This book basically traces CRT and DEI to the New Left of the 1960's and 1970's. While I am a Democrat, I never liked the social justice/woke niche of the party and this book is kind of reinforcing that dislike. Would recommend if you are conservative or you a Democrat and don'tt like the social justice/woke niche of the Democrat party. By contrast if that is your thing I would definitely not recommend this book as it will likely leave you frustrated and annoyed. 2. Love and Hate in Jamestown: I live in Yorktown/Newport News Virginia which is close to Jamestown and I have been to the James Settlement Museum a couple times. I enjoy asking the educators at the Jamestown Settlement Museum lots of questions and I like the museum so I wanted to read a book on the history of Jamestown and this book hit the spot right. This is my first book I read on this topic and I don't know how perceptive the author is, but I was really impressed by John Smith (at least the authority's portrayal of him). I enjoyed the book. Would recommend if you like American history, but by no means a must read. 3. Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power: I read a couple biographies on Thomas Jefferson before but wanted to read this one by John Meachum just because it got a lot of buzz. I picked it up when I visited Monticello last year along with the book below (the Hemmings of Monticello). It was a solid enough history book but to be honest I was a little disappointed. Meachum gets so much buzz as a great writer I think my expectations were too high. Definitely a decent book for history lovers, and not a difficult read, but also by no means a must read. 4. The Hemmings of Monticello: I came to this book apprehensive, a bit nervous the author would have too much of a social justice analysis for my taste based on the book's subject matter (as noted in my review of American Cultural Revolution that is not my thing), but was pleasantly surprised. The author, Annette Gordon-Reed's analysis struck me as very balanced. She absolutely explained everything in the context of the time and did not try to impose today's moral world on people who lived over 200 years ago. I thought she had good reads on both the Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson. In general, she struck me as very perceptive and I read a decent amount of history so that is something I appreciate. She also provided just the right amount of context about the culture and society that the characters were operating. I would definitely recommend this book.