SoCal Deek

While most of yesterday’s hearings was pure deflection from the Democrats, I did hear something that caught my attention. The basic narrative has generally been that Joe interfered in US $ aid to Ukraine to protect his son from a prosecutor looking into his corruption. One of the Republican congressman suggested a nuanced different take and timeline. He said that at that time Burisma was trying to get admitted to the Stock Exchange and the rumor of corruption was going to hold that up. So, they hired Hunter as a buffer, and that’s why Joe intervened. If true, why does it matter? It matters because it means Joe’s intervention was not personal (protecting his son’s paycheck), but instead was a ‘fee for service’ to sway or change policy. For what it’s worth.

Hilarious! Once again….that is NOT how this country works.

What about the courthouse exactly?

As I figured. Trust me when I say it was beyond ridiculous. I’m not trying to be partisan here. Honestly, unlike many on here I say a “pox on both their houses”, but the lack of interest from the Democrats was beyond stunning. Hawk, BOTH of these witnesses were incredibly prepared, serious professionals, and BOTH are democrats, ….one of them is gay! But they both know corruption when they see it. Truly shameful that we’ve gotten to the place where if it’s not your tribe, they just don’t care.

Did you personally watch the hearing?

Quite possibly so, but I honestly didn’t think I’d live long enough to see the Democratic Party so invested in protecting the Deep State and Elected Official corruption. We’ve entered bizzaro world for sure. A truly shameful display of elitism today.

What a clown show. The democrats wanted to talk about EVERYTHING but the testimony of these very credible witnesses. If this had been a trial, it would be over! We may have passed the point of no return when it comes to corruption in Washington. It’s now become common place and acceptable for these insider hack politicians to shovel money into their own pockets.

Is he willing to play Running Back?

So in your opinion, you would advise RBs against agreeing to such a deal. That's fair enough. As I said there are pros and cons to everything in a negotiation. In the end, it won't be up to either you or me. And remember I'm not saying this is what I would recommend. You asked what a 'solution' might be. The RBs will have to make their case to each other and to the Union. Exactly as is and has been done in every other Labor Union...ever.

And according to you they are also less.....fat. 😂

I love how certain fans believe they can speak with such absolute certainty. You have no idea what the Union will and will not negotiate. Heck, in most Unions half the actual members have almost no idea what the negotiations are about until after the new agreement is voted in. And, it’s not at all unusual for Unions to have specific carve outs for specific job descriptions. In fact, it’s the norm, not the exception. The issue with RBs is indeed unique and it’s not purely about pay. I cannot see the QBs making an argument that their careers are being cut short by the pounding; especially when we’ve seen Brady, Rodgers, and so many others playing until they’re practically senior citizens. 😉

From what I understand it HAS TO BE after the war. Per NATO’s charter: No nation can be admitted while they’re involved in an active conflict…or so I heard one of the talking heads say.

I’m sure you’re aware that a charter school is not a private school. The per pupil money simply moves from the ‘District’ school to the Charter School.

It seems odd. Once Ukraine joins NATO then it would seem unnecessary…no?

You really seem to like this ‘they’re fat’ narrative. Very odd.

Is the small incursion over yet? Is this as long as it takes? Have we run out of other people’s money yet?

I’ve said it before….one solution is to release RBs from the handcuffs of their rookie contract. By the Union’s own design big money is made (in every position) only after that rookie deal is over. Would it have other repercussions, yes it will. But for every action there’s an opposite reaction. That’s why it’s ‘collective’ bargaining. RBs as a whole would have to be ready to bet on themselves.

I still say let the market sort all of this out as it generally does. The challenge is that the players Union gums up the work, albeit well intentioned, with outside factors inserted into the equation. If one side doesn’t fit all positions then it’s up to the Union to negotiate a carve out that RBs think is fair for their unique circumstances. Seems to me the gripe should be with the Union.

Your hopes were once again…. dashed. The bigger story was how they poured all of that concrete over the last weekend! 😳

It’s a balancing act for sure. Yes, I’m certain that other variables would change in the equation. But I frankly couldn’t care less what Round any particular player is drafted in, and neither should the player. That status lasts all of about 20 minutes and then you have to prove yourself on the field. (It’s not all that different from professions who instead put weight on the university you graduated from. You still have to prove it.)

The general concept behind the rookie contract scale was to make sure younger players proved their worth before getting a big pay day with a second deal. But…if the only way to ‘prove’ yourself is to leave virtually nothing in the physical tank by Year Five, then it’s somewhat fool’s gold for the RB position. Maybe the market has to shorten the rookie contract length for that specific roster position.

I think it’s actually an interesting point. If history has shown that a RB, even when really good, rarely can get a second contract because his own rookie contract success probably means he’s been worked to ‘death’, then I’m sure the market will adjust.

You’ll have to get up pretty early to fool this crowd. Nobody circles the wagons like the Bills fan base.

Except that’s Los Angeles and it’s actually a canopy, not a dome. 😉

Send them over to the new stadium site. We desperately need a REALLY BIG ditch.