carpandean

Ironically, that limitation was meant (in part) to prevent wealthy families controlling the government.

Great use of a GIF. Made me :w00t: .

I remember around the combine a quote from TM about liking to take true athletes, even if raw skill-wise.

If they really want to make it exciting and reduce the chance of SO, they should have 3-on-2 and 3-on-1* powerplays. :thumbsup: * and, I suppose, potentially 2-on-2, 2-on-1 and 1-on-1 when both teams are penalized.

Neither one was doing anything wrong, per se, but they clearly didn't communicate well with each other. It's like a centerfielder saying "I got it" so that they leftfielder doesn't continue making a play on the ball. I've seen that go awry with poor communications, too.

I usually try to put myself in each person's "shoes" to figure out what they may have been thinking and why their actions might have seemed warranted to them at the time, in the heat of the moment. But ... this one doesn't really suggest anything other than the officer could not appropriately decide the level to which a situation needed to be escalated. Did race factor in? Possibly, probably, who knows. What you can tell is that he was reacting to the scene with what appeared to be an undue level of energy and force. He was so jacked up that he treated a buck-twenty (give-or-take) girl in a bikini like she was an eminent threat. He didn't control, much less deescalate, the situation; he made it worse. Even without all of the recent, highly publicized black/police interactions, he would be in trouble. With them? Hard to see him not looking for a new job when the investigation is done.

Maybe in PA. Here, it takes a background investigation, fingerprinting and (at least in Monroe County) 9-18 months of waiting, plus a bunch of $. All more than getting a driver's license. However, I do agree that some basic firearms safety training/evaluation should be a requirement, as long as becoming certified by the state to teach such a course isn't so costly and time consuming that nobody is willing to do it, making it de facto gun control. Heck, even Texas requires:

Wait, this isn't a nightclub? I thought it was like studio 54.

I doubt that there are rules. Simply a supply-and-demand thing. A team has to have fired a coach that is then in high demand. At that point, they need to choose their value, which can't be so high that it scares away any team from signing him, because they also benefit from having the salary come off of the books. As you say, there may be compensation for Bylsma, but it will be a very small part of a package for a first.

Tank hangover. ;)

I feel like I'm talking to myself. Even quoted, people seemed to miss my point. The article did not say that Bylsma would cost a first. It said that his rights could be part of a package for 21. Nobody in the article, including the Pens' GM, implied that his rights would be worth anything close to a first alone. The fact that the Sabres' second 1st-rounder is one of the ones that they are targeting and the Sabres are one of the leading teams for Bylsma just makes it more likely that they could work out a deal (including, but far from limited to, Dan's rights.) Edited to add quotes: Doesn't sound like someone expecting huge compensation. Note the "one element of a trade package" in the author's quote.

That's not what I got from that article. I got: 1) Rutherford does want a first-rounder (in general) and will be talking to teams with extra ones. 2) Buffalo is one of the teams that has an extra, so the Pens will be talking to them about it. 3) Teams do sometimes get compensation beyond just getting the salary of a fired coach off of their books when they are hired by another team. 4) If the Sabres want to hire Bylsma, then his rights may be part of a package for the Sabres' extra first-round pick. In other words, it's not that he wants a first-rounder for Bylsma rights, but rather that it could be one piece in acquiring one from Buffalo.

There wasn't enough time in the process for Babs to check with his wife about whether or not Buffalo was really a possibility before the very last minute?

There are a couple of gubernatorial elections that work this way. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, then the top-two candidates have a runoff. Would be interesting to see what would actually happen in such a system. Would anything actually change? Would third-party candidates have a better chance? It certainly seems like you would avoid the case a of two similar candidates from different parties diluting each other's votes. I've always had a problem with the concept of left vs. right when there are, at minimum, two dimensions (social, fiscal) to the political landscape. Where does someone who, for example, is pro-choice, supports gay marriage, etc, but is also in favor of limited government, reduced spending and taxation, etc, fall? Upper-left? Lower-right?

I could see it working for a year or two. Bringing in Babcock and making some "splashes" this summer might invigorate those three for a little bit. Not a long-term strategy that I would go with, though. I could definitely see them being better (but not contender better) than the Sabres for a year or two, and then the teams would cross paths as the Sabres go up and the Leafs crash.

Definitely referring to the corruption in the second half of the last century, not the good that was done in the first.

Oh yeah, the problem with unions is definitely in the leadership, not the membership. The rest of it sounds about right (you could probably look at municipalities and their relationships with unions and find the same thing.)

There are definitely substantial cultural differences. It's worth noting, too, that Japan has double the per-capita suicide rate of the US. Very different and ingrained expectations.

Don't get me wrong, unions have done a lot of good (much of their early efforts are now codified in labor laws and OSHA requirements), but just as companies often ignore the fact that what's good for labor can be good for the company, some unions pushed for short-run benefits that were not long-run sustainable, forgetting that putting the company out of business is bad for them, too. They often "cut off their noses to spite their faces." Outsourcing is arguably the smaller of the two (possibly three) causes for manufacturing job loss in the US. Perhaps, the biggest was automation (the third being process improvements), which was going to happen regardless. Increasing productivity does not necessarily mean a reduction in labor, though, it can actually allow a company to grow. However, managers beholden to "how we've always done it" and unions that were inflexible to changes in the realities of the global marketplace have both prevented this potential quite often. One could argue that outsourcing labor overseas is not long-run sustainable (it's already reversing for several reasons) and companies that have adapted their method to continue operations domestically will be more likely to survive. As for the recent 30 years and profit, look at where much of that profit has been generated: internet companies (for a while), the oil industry, the banking industry and consumer electronics. I guarantee that employees in those industries were/are relatively well taken care of. However, only the last one has any real labor content (of the kind you are talking about), most of which has been pushed back to their suppliers.

So, basic supply and demand. Economic growth fueled demand for labor (talent), which drove up prices. Not quite the feel good story of companies taking care of their own, but rather illustrates that when the economy is grown, labor is often taken care of as a consequence (not always, of course, see for example the empires of the late 1800's, early 1900's.)

I am by no means a labor historian, but let me ask: how did these times correspond with the rise in power of labor unions and the globalization of the marketplace? What I am getting as is whether the powerful labor unions caused a rise a labor cost that were sustainable in a nationally-driven economy (possibly, though eventually commitments to pensions, etc, could have threatened that), but not in the presence of a strong global economy. For example, the Japanese auto industry was small and national for much of that time period (part of what drove the development of the TPS), but emerged as a far more efficiently operated global competitor around the time of your retraction.

I am and always have been for changing the rules for offsides. Crossing the blue line is the biggest interruption to flow, whether it's an actual offsides or just slowing up to avoid going offsides. It's depressing how many good rushes get negated. My long-time suggestion has been 3 or 4 foot wide blue lines (qwksndmonster also mentioned this ... well, 10 ft wide) and changing the rule to "no player make cross the offensive-zone edge of the blue line until the puck crosses the neutral-zone edge." However, I could imagine many others. You could get silly and try a soccer-like "a player may be in the zone, but cannot be behind the last defender when the puck crosses the blue line on a entry." Others have mentioned some:

Outside of work? Responsibility? I would say 'no', but there is a lot of evidence that it is in their best interest to do so (happier employees, less interruption due to illness, etc). Some very successful companies have realized this, while many have not. In theory, if a potential employee has a choice of positions, then they will consider all aspects of their compensation (the package) in making their decision. As such, a company that does not would (again, in theory) have to pay a higher wage to compensate (pun intended).

Maybe not, but their decisions can have multi-million $ effects on the company's bottom line. Bob flipping burgers? Not so much (other than doing something that bring a seven-figure lawsuit against the company.) The NFL generates ~$10 Billion in revenue; if you had a company pulling in $10 Million in revenue, would you question paying the CEO $44,000 a year? (The answer is yes, but not because it is too high.) #devilsadvocate (Note: don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues with golden parachutes and cronyism, which lead to overpaid CEO's who take undue risks. However, paying the guy/gal at the top a lot isn't about how hard they work ... though, most work much, much more than 40 hours/week.)