TrueBlueGED
-
Posts
29,076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TrueBlueGED
-
-
To go along with this, I hate the Phrase, "I'm gonna let you take the lead on this."
90% of the time what they meant to say was, "I don't want anything to do with this boring/useless/destined to fail project, but, in my head, I out rank you, so I'm going to throw this flaming bag of ###### over this imaginary fence and drop it squarely in your lap...loser."
:censored:
Reason number 5,401,299 why a career in academia appeals to me.
Also, this summer. My complaint is this summer. My weekends are filling up so fast I'm sitting here thinking that maybe I should sell my motorcycle and save myself some insurance money and put a little cash in my pocket. I'm not sure I'm going to have ANY time to ride, and that depends on if the weather is even nice. I've got 9 open weekends right now until the first week of August when I have zero free weekends until fall comes. That's about 18 possible riding days. Say half of them have bad weather, I'm back down to 9 days I can ride this summer.
I'm ready to say screw it. :(
Congratulations on planning in advance, at least. I don't know what I'm doing next weekend, let alone a few months out.
-
Drinking some Rusty Chain at the moment. I've come to like the Flying Bison beers, and always like supporting local businesses. Has anybody tried their IPA yet?
-
And that tends to lead to the question of "what is the government's role in banking, wall street, and the business sector?" That's where the argument that the government matters comes into play. The two common paths from that point seem to be whether or not you believe the government should have more or less control over those institutions. Conservative Laissez Faire argues for minimal government regulation while the more liberal argument is that these institutions cannot be trusted to function in the best interests of the people without strict government regulation. Myself, I think I fall towards the latter, but time and further learning may change that. At this time though I believe a hands off approach is naive.
At the risk of oversimplifying things, to me, it's just a value judgment--there is no "best for everyone" answer. Simple logic really...if there was one approach that made things better for everybody, then that approach would always be taken and there would be little to no argument about economic policy. A lot of economic arguments are just arguments about divergent values veiled in a fallacy of a "best policy" debate.
-
So now because Gary Roberts disagrees, Hodgson being an issue for the Canucks GM isn't true? And even if it is true, whats the big deal? He had issues in Vancouver where they misdiagnosed his injury, and he was stuck behind a couple of superstars for playing time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Canucks GM had to spend alot of time dealing with him and what to do with him. Its also possible that he is now in a place where he will be happier and won't be an issue the GM has to spend alot of time on. I don't think Roberts was there in Vancouver at all to see what was going on and is only going off of his dealing with him in the offseason, away from the team. no one ever said he wasn't a hard worker, or that he wasn't trying, Gillis just said that he spent alot of time dealing with Cody the last few years. The fact that Cody doesn't want to talk about or look back on his time in Vancouver and dispute the comments from Gillis lead me to believe that theres probably alot of truth to Gillis comments, he wasn't happy there and may have had issues with the Canucks management and now he has moved on and is putting it behind him to start fresh.
But of course, on this board, everything seems to have to be Black or White, with either Cody being a malcontent who (with a demanding father) will constantly be agrevating and complaining to management, or he is a sweet and innocent kid who some evil GM is trying to defame to cover his own behind in a mistake of a deal
I think your response is a little over-the-top. I think Roberts' comments add perspective to a situation none of us will ever know the complete truth about. Doesn't mean Gillis is a lying bastard or Roberts' word is gospel, but I think it helps to explain why things went down as they did in Vancouver. Until now all we had really gotten was Gillis' side of things, and now we have a different view on it. Is that a bad thing?
-
http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sabres-nhl/article834441.ece
Gary Roberts counter-punches Gillis' comments about Hodgson.
-
It's so much easier when you don't give a damn about any of the politics in those publications. I just do my part and then get the hell out of the way.
I'm personally hoping for a teaching job where I don't have to publish to get tenure. That being said, if a former colleague started shredding me, particularly if they were improperly citing my work, you're damn sure I'd go after them.
-
Found a new paper last night that cited a paper of mine in their discussion section, and it happened to be from a collaborator of my former boss. Sounds good so far, except after looking at the context of the citation I saw it was both disparaging and factually incorrect on many levels. Given it was a few sentences it seems unlikely to have been an accidental citing of our paper when they mean someone else's, so that guy can go fcuk himself. Who collaborates with someone and then sh!ts all over their work? Seriously pissed off about it. And, honorable mention for today:
- went to bed at 5am and got up at 7:30am
- the above may have actually been fortunate, since my dog woke up and started crapping everywhere around 3am (would have been on the bed, ended up just being the floor)
- I have to try and find a way to give eye drops and an oral antibiotic tablet to my boyfriend's antisocial, overweight cat for the next three days while he's out of town
- way too much work lately keeping me from keeping up on SabreSpace :(
If you were vindictive, such as myself, you would go after that former collaborator HARD in your next paper. But hey, not everybody is like me.
-
Maybe Gretzky isn't the best example considering his wife laundered millions worth of wagers for NHL executives.
I added an extension to my web browser that adds an asterisk anytime anything refers to a gretzky record or oilers stanley cup.
I remember years ago on Jim Rome's radio show (probably 7ish years ago) he had a guest on who used to serve as a "game fixer" or whatever you want to call him for the mob. He copped a plea and served as an informant for the FBI, and is still under witness protection to this day and has to relocate every few years. Anyway, he said that gambling has influence on over 60% of games. Of course this doesn't mean outcomes are predetermined, but I found it interesting. I have no idea how credible the guy is, nor do I pretend to know exactly how often gambling influence actually alters outcomes, but it's definitely an interview I'll never forget.
-
It's a good point. I have no idea what it means for the Sabres. We did get confirmation the other day though that he drove the Canucks batty. There were plenty of articles over the past 3 years saying Hodgsons dad was involved heavily.......that's the only reason I found out about his political escapades. It was just a giant red flag that perked my interest, leading to another giant red flag. When you add them up.......it's a lot easier in my opinion to temper the excitement of a homerun.
As a player in himself...I like Hodgson's vision....i really do. He has a nack that many top centers in the past have had of anticipating where the puck should be before the guy even gets there. Haven't seen that on a consistant basis in Buffalo in a while so that is a huge plus. At the same time like Gillis said, if Vancouver develops Kassian properly, he is one of 5 guys in the league that would be a monster. You can't get those guys. It goes to the old debate of who is more valuable to a team....Lucic or Spezza? That's the upside for both these guys.
Couldn't the answer be...it depends? In a vacuum, I take the center every time...but we don't operate in a vacuum. I'm sure a team like Philly or Pittsburgh would be better off adding Lucic than Spezza. But the Sabres? I'm not sure I could be convinced that Lucic makes the Sabres better than Spezza would. I honestly feel the only way the Sabres lose this trade is if Hodgson busts and Kassian hits his potential. If they both hit their potential? It may be on of those rare win-win trades.
-
I think it is as simple as there is a level of Vancouver respect for Vancouver as a franchise that just isn't there with the Sabres. It may be due to all the ownership changes, Status Quo, the lack of superstar's or that Vancouver is a Canadian city.
I think there's certainly some merit to that, and organizational reputation is certainly built over a long period of time. Having said that, I absolutely despise the logic of "Gillis' team has won back to back Presidents' Trophies, so obviously he got the better of Regier". First of all no GM is infallible, and secondly, Gillis wasn't even close to being principally responsible for the team currently in Vancouver. The Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Schneider, Luongo, Bieksa....they were all there before he took over. His acquisitions include Booth (decent), Hamhuis (excellent), Ballard (who is currently a Leino-esque salary albatross), plus his deadline acquisitions this season which (at least for now), flopped. I get that Vancouver as a franchise has a better reputation than the Sabres, however, Gillis has done absolutely nothing personally to earn some sort of superior reputation where it's assumed he knows more than another team in a trade.
-
There is a great deal of respect out there for the Kings. Quick is taking his place as one of the best young goalies in the game and has people looking at the Kings differently.
Not going to disagree with any of that, but it's really irrelevant for what I said. If the Sabres had a Hart winner, Hart finalist, Selke winner, consecutive Presidents' Trophies, coming off of a season losing in game 7 of the Finals....and they got bounced out in 5 games to an 8 seed? They would be getting thoroughly crushed by most, but the pre-existing critics in particular. Yet it happens to Vancouver, and they're still treated as a sparkling franchise by the same people who would crush the Sabres in identical circumstances.
-
For all this talk about how Hodgson just went from the Tonight Show Band to ECC....the Tonight Show Band played a whopping 5 more games. I'm pretty sure that if the Sabres won the Presidents' Trophy and then bombed out of the 1st round in 5 games, those who are currently trumpeting Vancouver as being some superior franchise (and not just here, in the media too) would be absolutely skewering Buffalo.
-
2
-
-
Hmmm. A father involved in his twenty-one year old son's life,.. better call Child Protective Services because that is straight up abuse.
Careful now, by not fully buying into a grand conspiracy theory you're in danger of getting drunk on status quo :rolleyes:
-
This statement is incorrect. It made all the sense in the world to move a great asset that you didn't need. He wouldn't see top 6 numbers for another 4 years. The canucks didn't need him. Fortunately for the sabres, Gillis's judgement may have been clouded on 2 fronts. The "problem" of a top 6 player wanting some assurance he would have a chance at top6 minutes, and his assessment of the impact a certain developing big-bodied winger might have.
No ###### Hodgson wanted to be moved. Just like whoever the starting quarterback for the team Manning landed on would want to be moved.
Right, it's the same logic as always taking the best player available in the draft...even if you don't have an immediate need for them, somebody will, and you can use him to acquire what you do need.
Also, telling somebody to "get those F'n Indians out of my park" is not the same as saying "shoot the ###### and carry them out in body bags!" I can't believe anybody believes that Hodgson's dad telling officers to get them out of the park is the same thing as telling the officers to open fire. And to those who do believe this, well, I have some more bad news for you.....http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
-
For Hodgson being such a massive problem in Vancouver, you'd think they would have been willing to trade him for more than 6 players. Given this, I see 2 logical possibilities:
1) He has damn good potential and they were loath to get rid of him
2) He wasn't actually much of a problem and Gillis is trying to save face on a trade that didn't work out for him this season
If it was as big of a deal as the Hodgson haters are trying to make it out to be, he would have been moved a long time ago.
I also laughed at GoDD's post...not only because of the hilariously contrived drama involved, but because he accuses everyone of taking everything at face value and not willing to put in the work to understand something which may make the Sabres look bad....but is completely willing himself to take everything negative about the current state of the Sabres at face value because it agrees with his existing negative predisposition. Leino had to think...on a new team, in a new system, with new teammates and changing positions...I was right Ruff ruins players! Hodgson caused problems getting his back injury properly diagnosed...I was right, he's a bad apple and Regier sucks! Paul Hamilton said Ruff ruined Kalinin....I'll ignore the players who have gotten better....I was right, Ruff ruins players!
-
2
-
-
I'm not sure why you can write it off as a "conservative talking point" when it's empirically true. No recovery took place when the New Deal policies were in place: http://www.u-s-histo...ages/h1528.html The Great Depression was basically two recessions (1929 and 1938) with little recovery in between. How is that a success?
And we can know how his policies worked. Crack open any Macroeconomics textbook and you can pick up the broad strokes of how government policies affect national economies. It's silly to say "well, we'll never know" because by that standard you could never criticize anyone for anything. (Not even after you knew the results?) Everyone acknowledges that Herbert Hoover's policies did not help (Smoot-Hawley, for example) and FDR's own people acknowledge that his policies were an extension of Hoover's. There's no mystery here.
In his defense, he latched onto ideas that were popular at the time (both economically and, obviously, politically). That doesn't mean they worked, and that's pretty easy to see in retrospect.
By your own link, unemployment dropped from 24.75 to 14.18 from 1933-1937. Is a 10 point drop in unemployment nothing? Even the double dip recession still had a lower maximum unemployment rate than when FDR came into office. I've never made the argument that FDR ended the Depression, as such an argument would be foolish and completely untrue. My point is we cannot know what would have happened with different policies, we only know what did happen. The conservative talking point is that FDR's policies made things worse, or prevented the recovery in the long-run. But really, we have no idea at all what would have happened without his policies. That's all I'm saying.
And I maintain that presidential politics has a minimal impact on the macro economy. Track the actual economy across nations...economies have thrived and suffered under very similar conditions and government policies. In a market economy, political policies have minimal effects on the macro economy--not zero effects, but minimal. Most effects are on the margins and don't change the overall arc of economic output. As a broad stroke, research has shown that Democratic versus Republican presidents has zero statistically significant effect on GDP. At the end of the day economics is a social science, not a hard science. There are competing theories about what to do or not to do...but they are theories, there is nothing even remotely equivalent to an equation for acceleration due to gravity or centripetal force. Economics is a completely different animal, and to pretend otherwise is foolhardy.
-
Parliamentary systems always are command oriented. The chief executive and the legislative are always aligned. If they are not constrained by a constitution and a court, well what then?
You're still confusing economics with politics. A parliamentary system with responsible parties does not mean there is also a command economy. And all modernized western democracies have some kind of constraint, be it a constitution or a common law system.
Actually this is the best lesson. He had no clue what to do and tried one thing after another. None of them worked. WW2 worked.
He didn't know exactly what to do, neither did anybody else. Again, economics is a social science for a reason, economic theories are theories and not laws for a reason. Designing economic policy is not the same thing as designing a bridge.
-
Parliamentary sytems always have this. Would you claim them all to be command oriented? There is a difference between single party rule and a command economy.
The best lesson I take from FDR was his pragmatism. When something didn't work, he often moved on to something else. I wish politicians today would take such an approach, rather than tying them selves to a sinking ship and trying to spin it into a great step forward for the country (i.e. the War on Drugs, all the crappy Home Ownership initiatives, The War in Iraq, etc.)
Precisely.
-
You are right, we cannot know.
On the other hand we know his policies did not work prior to WW2. FDR ran on an anti-war platform his first three campaigns. Then he did pretty much everything he could to get us involved in WW2. He gave Britain a whole bunch of destroyers under lend-lease and also gave Britain and Russia other war materials. Not the act of a neutral. He embargoed steel and oil against the Japanese. This is also not the act of a neutral.
Very, very ironic that his anti-war political campaigns and his economics failed to end the depression but his pro-war actions did end the depression.
Also, this is much more than a conservative talking point, it is the verdict of economic historians.
I'm not sure why you needed to conflate his economic policies with his foreign policy (unless you're making the argument he entered the war for economic purposes--but I don't think that's what you're saying). Ultimately, yes, it was WWII which ended the Depression. How much FDR's policies helped improve conditions during the Depression versus whether they ultimately extended the Depression, however, is a topic of intense scholarly debate--to which there will probably never be an objective answer, since economists are so polarized ideologically these days. At the end of the day I'm uncertain it mattered either way, since presidents have little control over the economy (even though they magically get the credit/blame for economic conditions). Our economy would have to be significantly more command-oriented for any president's policies to have anywhere near the impact that most people think they do.
-
His economic policies are relevant today as an example of what not to do. It's not a coincidence that the Great Depression didn't end until World War II hit and we gave up on the New Deal.
Popular conservative talking point. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where you can definitively say "Since WWII ended the Depression, it was clearly FDR's policies which caused it to last until WWII". Don't know what would have happened without his policies, can't know it. There's a reason economics is a social science and not a hard science.
-
If Burke still wants Hodgson for Schenn, I'll be willing to drive Cody to Toronto myself.
If Luke Schenn were a Sabre, you'd be constantly ripping him for either regressing or stagnating, saying how he's overhyped and should be traded for something more proven, and using it as an instrument to rip Ruff's coaching and player development. But since he's not a Sabre, he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and should be acquired by any means necessary.
-
6
-
-
Oh I absolutely agree that Kassian has yet to show that kind of nastiness or consistent physical play--- and perhaps never will. But the Vancouver media at the very least was selling that 'Jr. Lucic' bill of goods.
Honestly, if the reports of a rift between Vigneault and Hodgson & his agent are true then maybe it is possible the deal was made to unload Cody when a good return was still available. But if they didn't truly believe Kassian was ready to play the role they've asked him to play then they're putting an awful lot of pressure on that young man.
I'm not sure how much of a hurry they were in to get rid of Hodgson, seeing as one East GM spent several days trying to pry him away, even allegedly offering up Schenn (*cough* Burke *cough*) and was told plainly that Hodgson wasn't being moved at the deadline. The only thing I can think of is that with the acquisition of Pahlsson, they wanted their 3rd line to be a checking line, which clearly doesn't fit Hodgson's skill set, and he is neither a 4th liner nor a winger, so he was kind of odd man out this season. But that still doesn't change that they would have rather taken Kassian back than Schenn, which to me says they expected a bigger contribution this season than what they've gotten.
-
The more I watch the Canucks vs LA it is very evident the Sabres shafted Vancity on this trade.
Kassian doesn't get a chance to defend the stars because he barely plays and when he does, he can't engage anyone.
The Canucks are really missing that offensive punch, which Hodgson could provide.
Honestly I think the only way Vancouver got shafted is if Kassian never develops. Hodgson was never going to reach his potential playing behind Sedin and Kesler, unless they traded one of them in the near future. Although with Daniel being injured, they could surely use Hodgson on the PP at least. Kassian just isn't ready this year to be an important contributor on a Cup team, but that doesn't mean he never will be. Long-term though, I still think a win-win for both teams is likely.
-
1
-
-
Watching the game last night, Kassian had a giveaway trying to clear his zone which led to a great scoring chance for LA, and I didn't see him on the ice after that. I never understood this trade from Vancouver's perspective in the first place--it was clear, to me at least, that Kassian simply wasn't ready to be a major contributor in the NHL, particularly not on a potential Stanley Cup team. This doesn't mean the trade is a bust long-term, or that Kassian won't develop...I just always felt it was the kind of thing that would have made far more sense in the offseason.
F'N...tastic Fridays....
in The Aud Club
Posted
You did all you could, but ultimately only one person can break the addiction. Thoughts are with you and your friends.