Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

njherdfan

Members
  • Content Count

    2,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

140 Excellent

About njherdfan

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Location
    NJ

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New York Jets

Recent Profile Visitors

8,133 profile views
  1. How do you pull that off without sounding incredibly condescending?
  2. I think there are absolutely good cops and bad cops. The good cops are the ones that tip off media members about things like the Laquan McDonald shooting. The vast majority of cops are good cops. The majority of police shoootings involve police officers who have prior complaints of excessive force that are dismissed, which ties into the real problem, which is that we have a system that makes it almost impossible to punish even egregiously bad cops, both because of police unions that have gotten all kinds of concessions for all officers involved in shootings, and people who mindlessly accept any narrative that a police officer puts forth.
  3. And then there are the anecdotal accounts vs. peer-reviewed journal articles. I'm sure there are some people who would waste money no matter what. I'm just saying that there's actual, empirical evidence which contradicts the narrative that if we gave poor people enough money to live on, they would immediately blow it on luxury items.
  4. I recently read a very good book called Evicted, and in it the author discussed the poorest of the poor making objectively unreasonable purchases with limited funds. One of the things I found interesting was his discussion of social science literature which indicates that when poor individuals get more significant income (generally in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit) they tend not to blow the money right away, and they actually manage it in a way that is objectively better. I didn't follow up and read some of the other cited articles, and I'm sure the author has his own biases, but I thought it was interesting.
  5. A lot of things mentioned here are great. One note on Capital Bikeshare is to understand how it works. A lot of people just rent the bike and apparently don't return it until the end of the day. Check out angry Yelp reviews about it! But as long as you don't have the bikes out for more than 30 minutes at a stretch, it's a great service. Also if you want to go full tourist, you could take a segway tour.
  6. I'd like to imagine Bernie picking Stephen Reinhardt, the only judge both older and more liberal than him.
  7. I don't think anything you said makes sense. -No idea what your 1st point about free speech means. -There was no individual right to bear arms until the Supreme Court created it in 2008. -Kagan has never even heard an abortion case on the Supreme Court.
  8. Got it. I guess I've thought of the term differently. For instance, I thought of the recent 11th Circuit decision upholding Florida's statute which bans doctors from discussing guns with their patients as an activist decision because it essentially creates a new rationale for upholding a law that seems pretty clearly unconstitutional.
  9. Interesting. So in a hypothetical situation, if a state completely banned abortions, and an appellate court upheld the ban by attempting to distinguish Roe and Casey, you wouldn't consider that activist?
  10. Are you saying that Rx companies shouldn't have patent protection? I think their protection now last 20 years. I have a list of drugs getting a generic equivalent this year on my desk (as you know what it is I do). The big ones (the ones I recognize right off) are Crestor, Benicar, Vytorin, Strattera, and yes....Viagra - as well as a few other caner and HIV drugs.He can speak for himself, but I took it to mean he's just pointing out one of the realities. Personally? I think 20 years is way too long in this industry to hold a patent like that. But, I'm not a big fan of health care being a "business" in the first place, so I am biased.So lets say we shorten it to 10 years. Rx companies aren't stupid, they will just jack up their prices even more for those 10 years - making these potentially lifesaving drugs even more out of reach for many people. That's also just "one of the realities".Another reality is that the government (through the FDA) gets to decide what drugs even make it to the market in the first place. Don't disagree....this is a big part of why I don't believe in a healthcare business. We don't need to be making money off of health care. Ok, lets say we don't. Rx development goes to the government and they hire who they feel is the "best and brightest". Wouldn't current Rx companies then just move to other counties where they can continue to develop their drugs (and possibly hire the actual "best of the best" and pay them better), and profits? Huge potential tax base lost, right? Would the government then say that anything developed elsewhere wouldn't be allowed in the US? What if that recent hep B drug was developed elsewhere? Wouldn't that just be another "reality"? I doubt that would happen. The best of the best are here. We have top universities to feed the talent pipeline, great quality of life, the lowest upper-income tax rates, etc. Where they gonna go? Especially if we remove them from the standard federal compensation system for scientists and pay them well; then all we'd be doing is removing the seven-figure executives who contribute nothing to the process and the bloated marketing costs associated with running constant boner pill ads during sporting events and sending out an army of smoking hot chicks to buy steak dinners for doctors. Hell we still get a ton of innovation out of NIH and NSF already, without taking steps to incentivize them. We're not talking about a field where the feds lag way behind the private sector here, right? We don't incentivize them with money now but there's plenty of incentive for them to get their advanced degrees If I'm being honest, this is an area (research) where our gov't gets it right. Yeah, there's some politics in the system, but for the most part it's a pretty good set up. When I moved to DC I was shocked at the number of international scientists working at the NIH, because there weren't post-doc jobs in their home countries in Europe. It's definitely a great investment that we make, it just surprised me that other countries don't do the same.
  11. Yesterday at work a woman brought a snow-blower into the office. I have no idea why, especially because it didn't snow, but she said she wanted to be prepared.
  12. I just had something I wrote that has its own Westlaw citation. It's the peak of legal nerdery, and probably incredibly routine for anyone who's practice for more than a few months, but it was pretty cool.
  13. GW Law sent me an email today saying, essentially "how about that win! Please donate!"
  14. If I were the Mets I'd trade Harvey for Simmons in a heartbeat. Harvey's a huge injury risk, he's entering arbitration (will cost more than Simmons after this season if he stays healthy) and is under team control for two fewer years than Simmons. Plus he's a Boras client so he's unlikely to do a pre-FA extension. No way. Someone like Bogaerts, or Russell, yes, but Simmons really can't hit, and his contract will stop being a bargain soon. I'm also not seeing Harvey as an injury risk. I do agree, though, that it's more likely that Harvey gets traded than he stays through 2018.
  15. I just finished A Brief History of Seven Killings. I thought it was amazing. It took me quite a while to get acclimated to the Jamaican patois, but once I was able to understand it, I thought it was incredible. Anyone else read it?