leh-nerd skin-erd

I'm not sure what you think I'm joking about? I suggested the unions continue to negotiate to get the books opened--of course it makes sense for them to have as much ammunition as possible to negotiate the best deal they can get for the union. When salaries go up, they win. And, while I have considered the fact that they don't want to open their books, I think it has nothing to do with "embarrassment" at all. It's a negotiation. Let's not kids ourselves, whatever side of the fence you're on----everyone---everyone is out for themselves in this deal. All the emotional garbage tossed in there is just that--garbage. With due respect to you and your opinion--suggesting one side is greedy while neglecting that the other side is aw well cheapens the argument. I find it interesting that you went from my question about players spreading the wealth by reducing their salaries, to blaming the owners for signing haynesworth and portis. these are examples of big swings, and big misses. but what about players respected for their expertise paid enormous sums of money----again i'll cite brady and peyton manning. when you draw lines in the sand, as in "owner's are greedy", how do you as a union supporter (in this case, anyways) reconcile the fact that some players make $10 million a year while others only a few hundred thousand? Good Lord--in your average business negotiation, someone banking $10m a year IS the target. As for making more money today than previously....I disagree that it is simple as that. I mean, I suppose it could be all about the robber barons on big industry trying to snuff out the dreams of the average joe, but my experience leads me to believe it's quite a bit more complex than you've suggested. Maybe they're concerned about the future of the league---and plese, spare me the "it's a money machine and always will be" argument because it's not all that long ago that it would have seemed impossible for companies like GM and AIG to be taken over by the government. there are many more examples, but those two work for now. So, whatever happens, happens.

Sometimes the over-simplifcation of the issue is the problem. The owner's ultimate responsibility is to sustain the viability of the league perpetually. The union's ultimate responsibility is to perpetuate the viability of the union and thus it's members. Each owner has his own issue to deal with in his organization, and each player represented by the union has his own issues to deal with that are important to him. As for leverage----so? Players use the leverage they have every season. I think we'd all agree that the union, given substantial leverage over the negotiations, would use it without mercy to benefit it's members. I've always kind of wondered about the appearance of hypocrisy in the union world. Please note my use of the word "appearance". I truly do not want to paint every player with one broad brush. However---this is a business based on a game. Nothing more, nothing less. It always seems to me that when a fan or player wants to debate the greed of owners, why not include a look-see at the greed of some of the players? Why not get serious about this and recognize that some player are paid a kings ransom to play this game, and it's really not an equitable situation. So--negotiate with the owners, get them to open their books, but also look at spreading some of the additional wealth around that players like Brady and Manning are hoarding to other, more needy players. I think to a large extent players overestimate their value to the game. Don't get me wrong, marquis players are great to watch. At the same time, if the top 5 qb's in the game retired tomorrow, the game goes on. Free agency has done much to make the fans realize that it's a rare player indeed who really gives a second thought about their loyalty to a team/city/fan. Those that display that loyalty---God love 'em. For the rest, well, I enjoy watching them play but try not to get too wrapped up in what they may or may not get. This ruling just reminds me that judges have agendas as well. Whether he's correct or not is largely irrelevant and frankly seems to be at the whim of whatever way the appeals court wants to look at it.

well, again, i disagree with much if what you write. taking a step farther back from my initial point, i ask myself---why on earth would the owner's not want a season this year? i suppose the simple answer could be 'greed' as you suggest, but in light of the record-breaking profits you cited, that makes zero sense to me. what does make sense to me, though, is that the owner's are ultimately responsible for the continued well-being of the league. i was making the point earlier that the players see themselves as the dog--i missed the second part of that, which is to me, they are the tail. take the top 10 players coming out of college this year, the one's everyone is talking about on message boards, mock drafts etc. pick a name, any name. let me ask you this--if the top 5 players decided that they wanted to form a rock band and tour the world, would the game go on? of course it would. when ray lewis retires, when favre finally goes away, the nfl remains. and i hate to tell you this, but truly believe it---the nfl = the owners. call them puppet masters if you like, but the machine is what it is. so, i can only derive that the machine has looked at what they got after the last agreement, looked at what they received and what they gave up, and has come to a decision on the how the future should look. their vision is different than that of the player's union. i would be hard-pressed to think the lessons of the economy over the last decade would have them somewhat concerned about the type of agreement they should set in place now---and the next request that will be coming from the union the next time they sit at the table. one thing i've learned in business is that it's awfully hard to get concessions later on once you've given something to someone. the leadership of the nfl has to think in terms of 5, 10, 15 year plans and beyond. i guess what i'm saying is, sure the player's want to play on their terms. if you're suggesting that the owner's don't want a season under any terms, well, that's the first i've heard of it.

nah, you're wrong. if you want to say it's all about greed, than you have to include the players in that. if it's about integrity and doing the right thing, of course, it depends on what side of the fence you are on as to what the right thing is. for every argument detailing what the owner's should do for retired players, you can make the same argument about current players with massive salaries as well. they could help retired playersmore. when you talk about revenue sharing, the players could agree to more evenly distribute whatever revenue they get collectively into, say, a series of tiers. if brady, manning et al would take less, the poor bastards at the bottom of the wage scale could get a lot more. maybe there should be a high-end cap of $2m per season, and a series of lower tiers starting at say $450k. agent's too, could cut their fees half. and, of course, the owner's could give more to retired players, and in fact give back to the fans in the form of reduced ticket prices. the 'us v. them' strategy employed by the union is brilliant, because the players on the lower end of the scale don't see themselves propping up the higher end players who bank millions and millions, not including endorsement deals they pick up on the side. when you think about it---the players with rich endorsement deals benefit from the lower wage earners in the regard, too. that money could be divided up for the retired players as well, instead of lining the pockets of tom brady. for instance--tom brady the player is really tom brady, the brand---benefiting from his stature as a marquis player on the greatest stage on earth. why does he retire with tens of millions, just because he can exploit lousy cornerback play 16-19 Sundays a year? in fact---i see the lousy cornerback of today as the exploited heathen chinese railroad worker of yesteryear. i say "rise up!". someone's always got it better than someone else. the players (and fans with your perspective) think they are the dog and the owner's the tail. i've been watching football for decades, and the game goes on regardless of who's playing where. there's no loyalty to fans, cities or teams anymore----so whatever happens, happens. no need to see one side or the other as the victim here, neither side really cares too much about us, do they? by the way--i don't take that personally, and that's just the point. for every player who signs a rich contract with a new team and says "i have to take care of my family", there's an owner who has to take care of his. oh---and i'll tell you what---lower the collective standard of play and who would really notice? people have been loyal to college football teams forever. do i want to see it happen? no, of course not. but i'm a bills fan first, everything else comes after that.

Assuming this plays out the way you think it might, how long before 10% of the great unwashed 90% see the talented tenth as middlemen lining their pockets at the expense of everyone else? Sooner or later, the players represented by the union must surely see that some are becoming fabulously wealthy while playing for a relative pittance themselves. I also think the Bill Maher analogy is appropriate. Here's a guy likely making millions working for a corporation that has developed a brand through years of careful planning and development. Yeah, I know he was a modestly successful stand-up comedian, but HBO gave him a forum to express his views consistently and regularly. I'd bet he makes loads more than some that work for him, I'd bet his cars are nicer and his home(s) larger. It's no different with ownership/marquis players/and the rank and file, is it? Let's be fair--the player's union would take every dollar that the nfl owner's group offered even if it ended up killing the nfl. And, likewise the owner's would be very happy if the player decided that they only wanted 30% of the net proceeds of the league. As to your point about middlemen...I disagree. The NFL brand is what brings in the revenue. Other leagues have come and gone, and yet there is something magical about the thought of watching The Packers from Green Bay play those guys from the Steel mill in Pittsburgh, even though many of the guys from both teams roll up to the game in mercedes suv's and tricked out hummers. The NFL brand is made up of all the pieces of the puzzle---the players, the league, the officials, and even the owners. That's what makes this ongoing battle unfortunate. The viewers who seek to enjoy 3 hours or so on a weekend, who watch the games and buy the gear and so on ultimately lose if it gets really ugly. That's nott o say it couldn't all blow up and the nfl fade away, but it seems unlikely. I agree with one point you made--who the heck knows where this ends up. I hope the billionares, millionares and hundred-thousandares get this all worked out by the season opener.

interesting analogy. if i'm reading you correctly, you're resigned to the fact that some physician's have a crappy system to deal with, and we should use that as a model for pharmaceutial development? that sounds an awful lot like someone saying to me "I have to eat this big old crap sandwich so you should have to, too". I'd hope for more, and it's nice to speak with a physician in the mix and hear that so I absolutely know I'm right! By the way--I believe the government was playing politics with reimbursement amounts to physicians not too long ago. Seems to me they would temporarily extend what amounts to an inflation index to bypass the statutory limits on reimbursements to keep physicians on the plan. I also read that many physicians are beginning to refuse medicare/caid patients for that very reason. Well, substitute innovative molecular biologists for medicaid-accepting physicians and I'm quickly back to why the government isn't the answer. So? Cost is only an issue in the absence of value. A person who worried less about the buck-twenty-five and more about the relationship with a human being sees value and is willing to pay the added cost. The 1990's did an awfully good job of teaching us that it's pretty easy to throw a dart against the wall and earn 47% per year. By extension, the theory goes, anyone can do it. No load funds are the way to go....except for the fact that for many people, they haven't a clue. They chase hot money, act on emotion, they act on impulse, they have unreasoanble expectations ("Wait, the fund earned 47%, 36%, 18%, 52% and the year I bought it, it lost 67%??? How???"). I do agree dog, it's insulting if you're knowledgeable and they assume you are not--but many doctor's are accused of exactly the same thing. That's just dealing wuth people. You may not need the consultation, the advice, etc, but trust me when I tell you many people do.

Actually, I think my doctor is great, and enjoy going to him. If I didn't like him and respect him, I would do as you have suggested. In fact, I did just that a few years ago with a doctor who's approach to patient care didn't meet my standards for what I expected from my physician. I think a good physician is a wonderful thing, but don't necessarily think every physician provides the exceptional level of care that you may indeed provide. No doubt some are in it for the good of the patient, some for the money they can earn, some are caring and some cold, some good, some bad. The point I was making was in regard to the process where government takes over drug development, eliminates the useless cogs you perceive to be in the wheel, and everyone wins. Since we likely agree that there are some physicians who should not be practicing medicine due to incompetence, why not take the discussion to it's logical conclusion? Why stop at drug development? Once government takes that over, we can solve the problem of allowing bad doctor's to practice by the government taking over all medical practices? This would save you the costs associated with running your practice, insurance, billing, salaries, utilities, drugs (they would be free in our new model), price maintenance, payroll and accounting costs~~~freeing you up to do what you love to do---provide exceptional care to your patients. in the meantime, since the government addressed all the underlying bs you deal with, it can save me the ever-increasing cost of care and pay you a modest stipend of $37,500 annually. I'm a business owner, see the results of overregulation and excessive taxation everyday-----and believe it's a recipe for disaster. If you want to go that way, I humbly suggest that you don't overvalue your role in the food chain. Everyone is replaceable, even the exceptional. That's part of the problem.

I didn't geta chance to do the search on the russian state. I did however do a quick search on the financial condition of many partners in the European experiment. Some of the prospects for future financial stability seem quite frightening. I also did a search on the condition of the United States government and found similar results. Your argument regarding brilliant scientists working unencombered by those pesky concerns of financing is all well and good, but regardless of how you look at it, those issues have to be addressed. Your suggestion that the rug can't be pulled out from them due to the lack of desire for profit is unreasonable. We only have to go back to, um, yesterday to see the budgetary football being played in Washington. The prez says one thing, the house another, and on it goes. Expanding the argument somewhat is the recent talk gaining traction that would allow states to declare bancrupcy to get out from the under the burden of the crushing debt accumulated after years of financial dawdling. Unfortunately, government is bascially just a re-engineered corporation. While a pharmaceutical company ultimately answers to stockholders in the pursuit of profit (and the next great miracle drug), the government answers to whatever party master holds the stick at any given point in time. The very fact that there is not a profit motive is why it seems to get off track. No one watches the bottom line, no one is ultiamtely accountable for the bottom line, and thus corruption ensues. I was looking for some evidence of a successful governmental or quasi-governmental program if the ultimate objective was sound fiscal management and I'm hard-pressed to find one. From the post office to education to social security to medicare, it seems that progams are in place, they just have a tendency to get real close to imploding. By the way, I'm all for reasonable government and taxation is a necessary part of life. I'm not anti-union or necessarily pro-big business. I think it's naive to think that government will magically find a way to govern itself in this area. Emotionally, it's a wonderful to consider all those middlemen out of the way to allow the brilliant chemist to work unimpeded to deliver the miracle drug that would cure late stage melanoma. Rationally, there's no evidence to suggest the dream is remotely attainable. Allow businesses to continue r&d and get out of their way by removing unreasonable legislative barriers. As for your thoughts on salespeople, you're not alone in your inability to see beyond the scope of your own experience. For every irrelevant sales person you've decided needs to find something else to do to satisy your vision of the world, there is a physician who bills astronomical rates for running a thermometer across your forehead. For an internist, the 80% of the patients who are healthy and have little need for routine health maintenace provide the funding for the 20% that should be referred to a specialist. The physician can't survive on a 5 patient practice, so they sell their practice by locating it properly, advertising, providing an attractive office, magazines in the reception roo, right near the fancy flat screen with drug commercials running while we wait. It's all sales at some point, dog. Nice chatting with you...

Nah--you had me the first time, it was sarcasm. Or rather, it was what I envisioned the "let's let the government do it" plan ultimately had to look like if it was going to work and actually function. I use the term function loosely, but generally to mean work in a way that virtually every other big-government administered program has yet to. Control everything--get rid of competition, price-fix, control the supply chain, and ultimately deliver the goods in a utopian fashion where nobody actually pays for anything, except of course, the angel, in this case, the taxpayer. What struck me from birddog's original post was the comment about the....ahh, what word did he use (i'm technologically challenged or I would find the phrase..but ti was the part about the glad-hander coming in to his office v. What he perceived to be the true innovator. It occurs to me that many times, the "let the government do it" people want to devalue those they see as irrelevant to the process while often inflating the value of others. To be clear, a molecular biologist who stumbles upon the next great thing has tremendous value to humanity, but may never had the opportunity to discover the next great thing absent the other pieces of the puzzle. So...the mad genius in the lab counts on the money people to generate the cash flow and so on. Intellectual innovation is a wonderful thing, other-wordly at times, but absent the cash to keep the lights on i'd bet it's a whole lot harder. I'm in the "reasonable legislation makes sense but otherwise keep the politicians out of it camp". Politicians think in 2-4 year cycles, often with a thought process colored by greed and/or self-interest. One of the things that irritates the crap out of me if the talking point of "no insurance company can ever turn you down due to a pre-existing condition!". So...a business is being vilified for setting prices that consumers already B word about AND you thought it unfair they didn't want to inherit a catastrophic care patient who walks in the door with a $200,000 bill? At the same time, the expectation is that rate structure is not a profit/loss issue, but a legislative one? Look, be honest, if you want to cover every pre-existing illness, manage cost artificially and open the door to the uninsured...at some point, it's got to be paid for. All these thoughts are noble, indeed, but beyond the capacity of government to develop (efficiently), administer (efficiently), and, well, self-regulate (efficiently). Tim

Did I miss something after the game? Was the sore loser reference to when he threw his headgear when his season ended? I had the jets beating the pats because, well, we all know why we wanted that other team to lose. Then I was hoping Pittsburg would win yesterday because....I'm a pissed off bills fan who would rather see a title go to a team that has already won it so the fans of another team could continue to ride the misery train with us. And yeah, i'm leaving out the Joe Namath SB because it's been so long ago most jets fans feel the same type of misery we do. Buy your ticket, head to the back of the train, past the rich folks who get a fancy club car filled with culinary delights and bunks with the sleep number adjustable beds----your cabin is small, cramped and has coal dust coating the 2 day old rolls with mouse poop on 'em. Anyway, I went into the season thinking the guy was a d-bag, and maybe he is. Yeah, he had ownership support and they built a team for a run this year. But from what I can see, he motivates his team to play when the chips are down, even if he has to create the perception that chips are down. He takes a cast of characters and develops schemes that seem to work, and even yesterday, when it got ugly early he got his guys ready to play in the second half. Doesn't change that I wanted the jets to lose, and like most bills fans the rest of the season is inconsequential. So, the headgear toss to me pretty much showed his passion for victory, and I can't hate the guy for that. Caveat---I'd have hated him next September and still will if they kick our asses again. I can only go with this respect thing until the ulcer starts hemmoraging.

i don't know, i wonder if they peaked last week. they were not a great team for most of the year. they didn't dominate across the board, week-in, week-out. going into the pats game, i thought they had an edge in that: 1. The pats rolled 'em like b*tches last meeting; 2. Ryan seems most successful motivating from the point of being the underdog; 3. I think they truly felt a legitimate team-beef with the pats; 4. The pats were rolling, and the jets certainly have the capacity to play lights out defense; 5. Ryan is innovative in his approach to defense and really had his back to the wall. All that said, the way the game played out, the general feeling is that the jets indeed played lights out for much of the game. However, in the last few minutes, there was still a chance for new England to rally to tie. Credit the jets with closing. On the other side of the coin, the defense Ryan cooked up for that game has to be different than the one v. the Steelers. Where Brady is a killer in a comfortable pocket, his desire and willingness to scramble is limited. Rothlisberger on the other hand can hurt you with his feet. At the same time---I believe if Sanchez gets off to a start where he's tossing the ball as high as he did in NE, trouble may quickly follow. he got a few breaks early with errant passes, and i think the steelers defense might well capitalize as they surely be game planning to his weaknesses. should be a good game.

I admit I did not see the "a reasonable couterpoint to the debate of the importance of mlk as an historical figure involves snooki and the situation", but that doesn't give your argument any legs. I did not suggest that mlk was the only relevant person of the day, in fact, quite the opposite. I don't see it as an either-or argument. If you want to take the argument to the extreme, every person who took a stand on the anti-segregation side of the debate was a figurative pebble in the pond in some way, shape or form. Each action may well have prompted another reaction. I think it's a fools argument to look at the footage of some of mlk's famous speeches and the people there to hear him share his vision and suggest he did not inspire people in a way wholly different than six kids in a rented beach house slamming tequila shooters (and often each other). Just to offer a rebuttal to your next comparison, I think he inspired people in a way that is different than the cast of Gilligan's Island and Squidward from Spongebob Squarepants, too. If you choose to believe that the role of mlk is diminished because of the actions of rosa parks or any of the countless others we could name....have at it. If you choose to believe that, say, his "I have a dream" speech was detrimental to the cause because of the reaction of his enemies...go to town. I think it's pure poppycock. We do agree that his assassination elevated him to almost other-worldly status to many people. Unfortunately, it's virtually impossible for a real person to stand up to the type of scrutiny that naturally follows. Again, witness Robert F. Kennedy and his relative importance with regard to the civil right's struggle and much of what we've learned after his death. I feel comfortable being able to reconcile the real difference between the saint and the man.

I'd think the fact that a suit with such egregious personal injury and such potential for splash died on the vine with a whimper clearly points out that it was not civil suit worthy. you'd have to change some of the facts to get most reasonable people to agree it should have it's day in court. i agree it can be lititgated, but there really seems to be nothing leading to the conclusion that is should be litigated.

you're pretty much described the kennedy brothers and many other important political human beings of that or any other era. your argument is much like a dog chasing it's tail..certainly if there was no history of oppression there would have been no for the civil rights movement, and no recognition of the important figures if the movement. by the same argument, if the japanese had never bombed pearl harbor fdr might never have been recognized as one the most important presidents of the 1900's. there may well be a tendency to look past the fault's of the man, as happens somewhat frequently with historical figures, but to suggest he was the equivalent of al sharpton is preposterous. with all his warts, he inspired and motivated millions of people and changed the world.

I don't like the cold either. Give me a few mill and I'll reconsider.

Exactly. It's only justified if you were robbed and cut into little pieces. How would you know? It seemed to me the homwoener excersized considerable restraint. Tragic, but not suit-worthy.

What an indictment on the mindset of the widow of this guy and the attorney representing her. I live in Albany, grew up in WNY so this was very interesting to watch. I am actually surprised it went away relatively quickly out here, I assumed there would be much more coverage here than there was. In any event, you would think there would be some boundaries to this type of legal action. Let's jump to the end here----the shooting was tragic for all involved. It would appear the guy got confused and/or disoriented---but do you assume someone in your house in the middle of the night is NOT up to something? By all accounts, the homeowner called out, offered the guy a chance to flee, but didn't. By the time he makes it to your stairs, the homeowner has to be thinking it's about to get real ugly in there. Then, of course the obligatory lawsuit has to come along because while the widow is grieving for her tragic loss, a few million would ease the pain. Shameful.

Oh, yeah, it was total sarcasm.

Dude- It's only been a decade. Don't panic just yet.

Service in the community was assumed. Why would anyone with any sense not serve their own community! I was speaking of the extra you could bring to the table, but then, I see from your responses that you knew that. Good stuff, you had me going for a bit.

Exiled! Excellent answer. I generally encounter folks who suggest they can't do more while taking care of themselves, that it's only the rich who need to dig deeper. The one teensy weensy little wrinkle in your answer if that where there's a will, there's a way--and you could likely do more right this moment to fund the greaster good without being forced to. Send a seperate check, start a foundation, whaever, but it can be done now. My issue is, was, and always will be that until the government shows some respectable level of restraint when it comes to spending and taxation, I prefer my tax rate be as low as possible. I'll do my charitable giving on my own, thank you, and when they speak of me doing more of my fair share---it's like finding out your wife is cheating on you and having her ask to drop by the CVS and pick up an extra box of magnums. When you account for all levels of taxation levied, we should be able to fund the country, eliminate the debt, and give the good people of Haiti and extra billion or two. Taxation is fine, and patriotic if administered properly, but that ship sailed along time ago. Tim

Sorry for the confusion. Well I'm not sure that our lifestyles are different. I make more money (I'm assuming from yourexample), but much of that is going back to pay off the substantial debt I incurred in building my income to the current level. I lost a boatload of investment money with the takeover of GM by the gov't. I have 5 children, a stay at home spouse and a parent in need of assistance thus the larger house. I'm upside down on my mortgage for reasons largely out of my control, taxes are out of control before we even talk of income tax. Your tax situation sounds much more manageable. It seems to me that if you're blessed with the good fortune of being able to set aside 20% of your household income, with a very manageable mortgage on a very nice home, and are able to send your children to private schools, you're pretty well off in spite of the difference in our income. It occurs to me that you could reduce the savings contributions from 20% to the 5-8% range and probably not notice any difference at all in your lifestyle. You could do more, I suppose, if you put your children into public schools but that's asking a lot. If you'd agree to do that, hypothetically anyway, the greater good would be served and I'd be able to continue without shouldering more of the burden. Would you be willing to save less if it would help others (like me) down on their luck? Would you agree to send that extra 12-15% to the government to supply it with much-needed revenue so I wouldn't have to? As for the salary cap stand, it makes sense, I suppose. If player x gets $10 m or so, he'd be taxed accordingly as a man of great wealth.