Jump to content

Hossage

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hossage

  1. The following speech was delivered by top of the class student Erica Goldson during the graduation ceremony at Coxsackie-Athens High School on June 25, 2010.

     

    I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system.

     

    Yet, here I stand, and I am supposed to be proud that I have completed this period of indoctrination. I will leave in the fall to go on to the next phase expected of me, in order to receive a paper document that certifies that I am capable of work.

     

    But I contest that I am a human being, a thinker, an adventurer - not a worker. A worker is someone who is trapped within repetition - a slave of the system set up before him. But now, I have successfully shown that I was the best slave. I did what I was told to the extreme. While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker.

     

    While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment. While others were creating music and writing lyrics, I decided to do extra credit, even though I never needed it. So, I wonder, why did I even want this position? Sure, I earned it, but what will come of it? When I leave educational institutionalism, will I be successful or forever lost?

     

    I have no clue about what I want to do with my life; I have no interests because I saw every subject of study as work, and I excelled at every subject just for the purpose of excelling, not learning. And quite frankly, now I'm scared.

     

    CONTINUED HERE

  2. You have listed what the fed will do, and I wont doubt you. Allow me to suggest it will matter less than in the past, because increased government control of the economy means less fluctuation of real currency value, because of the myriad of government programs that provide or subsidize credit continues to increase, the likelihood of deflation in the event that these actions happen, the similarly inflationary policies of the rest of the world, especially since our monetary policies seem to be more in line with those of Europe lately, the claw back effect of taxes collected on government enterprises that do not represent real value to the economy, and the fact that there is less probable return on borrowed money than in the past, and therefore less demand.

     

    In other words, there are diminishing returns for the government in relation to how much they screw with us.

  3. I dont even think it is about economics per se, because I dont believe any honest person thought it would work. Arguing from that perspective makes you argue left vs right, something I would like to avoid. Government wanted more money and power. They created a reason, and then took it. Both parties were in on it. They have been doing it for a very long time.

     

    Same thing with the savings and loan crisis of the eighties. They made bad rules on purpose, enriched certain people and companies hugely, and made us bail them out. It worked then, and it will work again.

  4. I understand the role of an ss. I mean that whitner is a small one and he played at the line more than some other defensive schemes would have put him there. He is probably a more natural FS.

     

    I actually played in high school with Bob Sanders, at Erie Cathedral Prep.

  5. I read both the transcript and your original post. Your original post left out two key sentences that were brought to light by jw.

    Can you agree with us?

     

    I understand you, Bob. I posted this thread because of Sullys comment that losing games is the best thing for the franchise. That is the title of the thread. He says that every year. Combined with his other negative comments about the team and his history, i believe the result is that of a person who is rooting against the team he is charged with covering. That is debatable. What is not was what he said.

     

     

    Whether or not we can enjoy a bad team is an interesting subject. But it is not why I posted the thread. I just love football, and I can enjoy a bad team. I really like to see players develop.

     

    I honestly do not agree with John Wawrow that I have misunderstood Sullivan. Nor do I appreciate his constant, mindless spamming of his opinion, more than a dozen times now, which I believe he has not come by honestly.

  6. To me, it's not the point of mediocre QB play wins championships (though it can -- "deep in the playoffs" was the initial bar and the list of non-star QBs gets much longer if you step back to AFC/NFC champions or AFC/NFC championship game -- )

     

    It's the point that championships are won by teams; champion teams build great QBs

     

    Other points to consider:

    -Great QBs are found and built outside the 1st round of the draft

    -Hindsight is always 20/20 on a QB's greatness

    -The view on that point when the team's not winning can look very different

     

    You point out the 50% SB QBs who were 1st round picks. Very good point and careful history.

    How many top-prospect, 1st round QBs have been busts in the NFL?

     

    Counterpoint: 50% of the GREAT QBs on your list were NOT first round picks. Examples:

    -Brady was drafted in the 6th round and started the season #4 on the Pats depth chart.

    -Warner was undrafted and spent years in Arena ball.

    -Rypien was drafted in the 6th round and spent 2 yrs on IR.

     

    They were not seen as great QBs b4 they started winning as part of championship TEAMS

    And when the teams lost key players, the same QBs stopped looking so hot.

     

    Example: I lived in St Louis in '90s - 2000's.

    I remember the gloom 'n doom over the Rams lack of quality QB in 1999 -- until the team clicked and started winning. Then it was "Greatest Show on Turf" and Warner future HOF. 2002-2003 with a coaching change and some key talent missing, "cut Kurt, he was only a flash in the pan" - no way a GREAT, future HOF QB.

     

    History suggests:

    -Don't write off a QB as mediocre or unable to win 'cuz he wasn't drafted in the first round, spent time on a practice squad and didn't shine like a gem on his first outing.

    -Don't assume a team needs a 1st round draft choice to build a good QB.

     

    I'm not saying anyone on the Bills roster is a great QB. Maybe there's potential there, maybe not.

    I'm saying great QBs are often recognized by hindsight, not 'cuz they excelled on a losing or poorly coached team.

    Quite often, they didn't, until they had the right coaching and the right pieces around them.

     

    Agreed, great post. I couldn't believe when people were saying Kurt Warner was done.

×
×
  • Create New...