Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

PeterMP

Members
  • Content Count

    2,293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterMP

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/11/1972

Profile Information

  • Location
    Something catchy like headexplode or EA's

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-pandemic-has-taught-us-about-science-11602255638 "An epidemiological model developed last March at Imperial College London was treated by politicians as hard evidence that without lockdowns, the pandemic could kill 2.2 million Americans, 510,000 Britons and 96,000 Swedes. The Swedes tested the model against the real world and found it wanting: They decided to forgo a lockdown, and fewer than 6,000 have died there." I'm not going to argue that the Imperial College of London study was right, but if you want to argue their "do nothing"
  2. Right, they both made money. But in the end, they are on low value contracts. And the fact that they made money was due to their contracts and when they performed. Hawkins has a different contract and if he gets paid will depend on when and if he performs well. If Hawkins has a good year next year, we have him for another year. If he's bad the next year, (whether because he's bad or the offense around him falls apart or he gets hurt), it isn't hard to imagine that he'll end up taking a relatively low contract. People aren't going to care about a good 2021 in 2023 if 2022 isn't good.
  3. The nearly equivalent thing happening baseball. Teams are extending guys just starting their major league career or even in the minors to bigger longer term deals. And those players, in some cases, are turning into real good players and the teams are benefiting. There's no reason it can't work in football. You control Haskins for 2 more years after this. There's good economic reasons to take the money now vs. waiting 3 more years to get the money. Plus the issue of injury, and if he's really good and healthy, he'll easily get another contract that will pay him big money. Th
  4. I don't know if he'd sign it, but today I'd offer to tear up the last 2 years of his contract (so he has to finish this year with they pay he has). Give him $8 million a year for 5 years with $15 million signing bonus and the next two years guaranteed. That would make him if not the least non-rookie starting QB contracts one of them. I think he's going to be an ok, but not great QB. And if you can lock in an okay, but not great QB in long term on a reasonable deal, then you might be able to put a winning team around them. And if you happen come up with a great QB, it isn't an
  5. The problem isn't that Simmons can't shoot it is that he doesn't shoot. It would be one thing if he was hitting something like 28% on a reasonable volume of 3's, but he won't even do that. And he even understands that he should shoot. He's been talking the last 2 years about how he'll take 3's if they are there. I don't know what could send the message that you don't care more than not doing something that all of your teammates are asking you to do, the coach has publicly said he wants you to do, and that you've said you'll do and still not doing it. (I also think pe
  6. 1. Brad Stevens has a better team. 2. They didn't lose to the Celtics last year. Celtics got bounced in the 2nd round 4-1 to the Bucks and nobody was talking about how great Stevens was (Sixers lost to the Raptors in game 7 on one of the craziest game deciding shots in NBA history).
  7. "KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/
  8. 1. I think Krugman and others would reject the idea that globalization was a leading cause for a lot of the things you're describing. Things other than globalization (e.g. technology) also have driven the loss of jobs for certain areas. Job loss was only a small contributing factor to cities being left in shambles and globalization was only a part of the job loss issue. Runaway drug addiction in the context of opiods was heavily driven by the healthcare industry (doctors, pharmacies, and the pharmaceutical industry). e.g. https://hbr.org/2018/08/a-closer-look-at-how
  9. I don't tend to think globalization in of to itself is the problem. The issue is how it was done/handled. From strictly an economic POV, I think most people would say the net effect for the average American is probably still a positive. What Krugman (and others) are saying is the net effect for a portion of the US work force was worse and happened faster than they expected. That can be true and globalization can still be a net positive to most/many Americans. (And things would be even better if there weren't issues like China's issues with google, and the government had done some things i
  10. "Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would." https://getpocket.com/explore/item/economists-on-the-run?utm_source=pocket-newtab Essentially, many main stream economists under estimated the degree and speed of globalization and therefore how much it hurt US industrial workers. And as part of that, it has contributed to economic inequality. It also does cite the failures by previous administration, especially George W. Bush and even Clinton (tho
  11. I'm not sure what you mean. How do you think they found the people that they are considering Native Americans without a question about it? Qualtrics did the screening for them (and apparently Qualtrics originally screened for "Native American Heritage", but all of those people then didn't self-identify as "Native American" racially so they had them go back and redo the screening.) "During initial data collection, Qualtrics recruited participants who identified as having “Native heritage”. Some of these participants, however, did not self-identify as Native Americans. When we lear
  12. That question was more put to SHF who said he would never do a survey the way that Berkely does (while doing such surveys is a big part of Qualtrics business, which is what the Berkely group used). I wouldn't say that one is more flawed than the other based on what I know. But given all other things are being equal, I'd lean toward the larger more recent survey. Though since, you've directly commented, I'd ask why you think that Califan's post shows that it was "very poor" and the Post one not? (From my perspective Califan brought up 4 issues: 1
  13. @goskins10 Again, I've never said the Berkely poll isn't flawed. And even the Post acknowledges the difficulties in survey Native American populations. Though I'd be curious as to why you think it is bad, and the Post okay. In terms of @Califan007, I'd ask whether than just insulting the people, maybe consider they are telling the truth. The link in the articles ("Exact question wording, order and percentage results can be found at wapo.st/pollarchive.") take you to this page: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polling/2019/05/24/washington-post-poll-archive/
  14. I wouldn't ever say that a poll is a good reason to do thing. And as I've suggested, I'm not sure of the quality of the Berkley poll. But there's good reasons to think that the Post 2014 poll is badly flawed too (as I've said good polling data on this is scarce). The biggest things it they again based their poll on self-identification and only polled ~500 people with no real efforts to normalized based on known population demographics. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/on-the-shameful-and-skewed-redskins-poll/ The Berkely poll is still
  15. Let's see, can we think about why the Berkeley poll might be more accurate? Oh, maybe it wasn't done 14 years ago? Maybe its possible that people's attitudes have changed over the last 14 years. Like maybe based on polling 14 years ago, most Americans were against same sex marriages and about 1/2 of Americans thought that same sex should be illegal? And maybe here's another: It actually surveyed more Native Americans. How about, it was actually setup to capture what actual Native Americans thought and wasn't a throw on question to a national survey that
×
×
  • Create New...