finknottle

He took it, he didn't demand and receive it. The 'force' was the actual taking, not the threat. The threat was to keep her from subsequently making trouble. (All allegedly, of course.) It's more analogous to pickpocketing than a hold up.

In my mind Cowher is no more a sure thing than Billick. What makes me nervous is the idea of fawning so much over him that we give him everything he wants, and I'm not sure how much of the GM's power that will include. I'm not sold on Nix, but we have to give him the chance to be strong and effective in the role. There sure seem to be a lot of good coaches who became bad once they got the coveted full control over personnel etc... the Peter principal at work.

Differences in the rosters, facilities, and management aside, one cannot ignore the paycheck. Coaches salaries are uncapped, and as a rich franchise the Redskins can pay a great deal more than the Bills. And let's not forget the impact of the welfare state: even if the Bills offered the same amount, taxes in Buffalo are significantly higher. A coach would pay an extra 5% of his salary to New York State over what he would to Virginia, and I imagine the disparity in county taxes are even worse. It takes a $1.1m salary in Buffalo to equal a $1m salary in DC. Differences in cost-of-living don't matter, since these coaches are not spending their money. It is their nest egg. They are banking it and will move on when they are done.

The most impressive feature is that his teams have always remained tough and competative *despite* quarterbacks not working out. Give him Losman or some other miss and you are looking at 8-8 or 9-7 and a wildcard appearance, instead of another long hopeless 7-9 season. As to the poster who called him an arrogant turd, sure - you rarely become an NFL coach otherwise. What makes him different - and IMO interesting - is that he doesn't keep it inside. He's not afraid to call out stupid questions, which rubs many in the media the wrong way. And he is one of the few coaches who occasionally offers real insight instead of spouting empty cliches lest opponents learn something. In the DC area, his post-game interviews with the Ravens were about the only ones I could ever be bothered to listen to; Gibbs and the Redskins were death-by-boredom in comparison.

So other candidates don't bring different views on policy, which don't get communicated to the agencies charged with carrying them out by the political appointees? Or are you saying that on the question of the appropriateness of profiling, all candidates think alike?

Well, first ask yourself if what you pay is roughly what you consume over the course of the years (in the sense of paying for medical salaries and facilities). I'm guessing yes, so health care reform will not find vast reserves of fat from which to lower your rates. But what it will do is add some number of uninsured to the rolls, and pay for them collectively. So yes, I would expect your rates to continue to go up, and at a faster rate.

A quick google suggests that DOD typically pays ~45%. Are you sure about the 80%?

Japan is an odd example to choose. They have a hodge-podge system. They do *not* have universal health care (despite what Democrats say about the world), *nor* is insurance uniformly offered by companies. Instead, what characterizes the Japanese system is that (1) it is mandatory to have insurance, and (2) there is no public option per se (but there is a plan available for students and the self-employed). So I would describe it as closest to our system, but tweaked a bit and with mandatory enrollment.

Substitute because a Diety willed it for for no reason and I believe you have the Old Testament.

Which sort of brings us full circle. I contend (and not everybody agrees) that wanting to work half time for half pay is not uncommon. The problem isn't that well-paid people don't want to do it - it is that it is not attractive for the employer. You can have a professional working full-time. Or you can have two professionals working half-time at half-pay. The two professionals together cost more than the one professional, because of benefits, training, supplies, etc. And the two professionals are not as productive; part of their 20 hours is spent catching up on what's been going on around the office and on various projects, you double up on time lost in staff meetings, etc...

Yes - and it goes without saying that this is a phenomena of those who at half pay are still making plenty. There is another angle to this too. Professionals are working later and later in life, in part because it is difficult to let go entirely of that which defined them and was the center of their lives for so long. These are the people who can retire but want to keep working to 'keep a hand in things.' They want the same job, surrounded by people and activities they are comfortable with, but for only two or three days a week.

I can't tell whether you are serious or not - you don't have the chain-yanking rep of ieatcrayonz... It is one of the ironies of success. Suppose you are 40 or 50, and making 200k. It's not unusual to begin to lose some interest in your job, especially if it is a big corporation, law firm, or the government. Sure you still like it and want to keep your hand in things, but it no longer seems worth devoting your life to. What if you could work 20 hours a week for 100k instead? Show up a couple of days a week, have time to potter around the house, spend time with the kids before they graduate, while still making comfortable money? You would still have the benefits and insurance too. Who wouldn't want that? I think it is a quite common desire among those who have reached their career, earning and promotion peaks. I know alot of lawyers and businessmen who would throttle back if their firms would allow, and it is even more common in government. Show me a GS-15 who is not on the senior management track, and I'll show you somebody who is angling for a part-time position at half pay...

My apologies for not wanting to go back through this 29 page love fest, unneccessarily, but I am intrigued by your 5 proofs of God. Are they contained here, or is there an external link?

Are you serious? You've never met people who want to work when they need the cash, and want to stay home or run off to Vegas for a week when they don't? The temp agencies are full of them. And at the other end of the spectrum what about those workers who, though diligent, would rather work half-time for half-pay? And as for not wanting to make any more money than you already do, that is quite noble of you. And I'm sure you are correct, nobody would ever game the system to get a raise.

I don't mean join the union you are working for, I mean form your own union. A union of one, if neccessary. That way whenever you need some unpaid time off, you can go on strike asking for a tripling of your salary say. Since it is a labor action they can't punish you for it when you call the strike off, and who knows - the NLB may step in and impose a compromise raise!

Ahhh, the voter list. I wonder who compiled it?

Why is it that you do not unionize then? Surely your employer the union would appreciate nothing more than to deal with it's employees through collective bargaining labor law, with the NLB serving as an arbitrator.

If religion is insane in the 21st century, then it probably was insane in the 20th. It's not 'becoming' anything. Religious belief is as retarded or sound as it ever was.

What's the difference between the US and Germany? Both economies are beginning to recover. We will be burdened paying off the trillion dollar stimulus bill. They won't. Enjoy your mowed lawns, freshly painted restrooms, and family planning pamphlets America. Hope it was worth it!

Isn't the new union rep an Obama donor and the former counsel to Holder? (Not much of a tie, but interesting nontheless.)

I'll take the contrarian view: The no-huddle was not the problem. Inept overall strategy from the coaches and individual failures to perform are the problem. Dumping the no-huddle isn't going to make Jauron play to win. Dumping the no-hundle isn't going to make Edwards stop checking down to the fifth option for a two yard gain, Dumping the no-huddle isn't going to reduce the penalties on the offensive line. I'll tell you what it *will* do. Dumping the no-huddle will mean that our inexperienced offensive line will have to recognize and deal with situational packages and substitutions. Dumping the no-huddle will grant Jauron a pass on the offense for the rest of the season. Dumping the no-huddle will be seen as another offensive 'change' for Edwards. Supporters in the organization will argue that it will nullify things for the purposes of evaluating him, he'll get an incomplete on the season and we won't know what to do about the QB position.

I take it you would call Obama a skinny-assed coke-head?

But perhaps it increases the statistical likliehood that he will be obese? Statistics are, after all, what makes insurance viable. So what exactly are you saying? That there is no actuarial difference between the expected outlays for a 17 pound baby and one born at a normal weight? Or that an insurance company has no business taking their statistical models into account when devising policies?

Yes, but that is what happens when a bad team keeps getting worse... a series of new lows, each worse than the last.

Very few. Broadly speaking, most nations are restricted from operations outside of their area of deployment, and most are deployed in safe regions - even if available for combat in principal, in practice they cannot leave their defined zone, typically somewhere safe like Kabul or the quieter north or west. The heavy lifting, the fighting in the south and along the Pakistani border, is the problem of the US, the UK, and Canada. (Indeed, NATO didn't even extend it's operations into the combat zones until 2006!) Many countries have further restrictions which can prohibit things like operations in urban areas all the way up to prohibiting combat itself. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4286208