1989NDN

The other teams have players, too.  Believe or not, the other teams are playing to win...they are competing to make plays.  The other squads will make their share of plays.  PAM wanted to win last Friday.  Hines makes a lot of defenses look helpless.  Our kids on defense are the best kids at PN-G for those positions and they are giving what they have to help get a W.  They are going to make mistakes.  It's OK, there will be other opportunities for them to make plays.  Just like they did vs. PAM.  They made enough plays on defense and the Indians won the game.  The old Burnett supporters will look for anything to detract from Coach Faircloth.  He wins...but that's not good enough...now, the Indians aren't playing defense like 1999 when Kendall Briles ran wild in state championship game.  The good 'ol boys just want better defense so they can go 5-5 and cheer that the Indians lost 7-0 or 14-3, but hey, at least we tackle well.  Our kids get into position to make plays.  They make some and others they don't.  Let us all know when Richard Sherman, Aqib Talib, Patrick Peterson, and Josh Norman enroll at PN-G.  Until then, just enjoy the ride.  Eventually Coach Faircloth will tire of the BS at PN-G and move on.  Then the know-it-all armchair coaches that like to talk football can go lead PN-G to 5-5 seasons and we will all be excited that your team knows how to tackle.  BTW, LC-M ain't shutting people down with MB on the staff.

Go Indians.  Peace.

Coach Faircloth has balls and they're made of steel.  Multiple 4th down conversions, multiple 2-point conversions, an onside kick, and challenging his players at the half to get up from the ground after being punched in the mouth by a physical PAM defense and to go make some plays.  All of that, and especially Roschon Johnson at QB = big time win for PN-G vs. a tough PAM team.  Where are all the HS fans that said PN-G would not score 30+ points on PAM?  Crickets?  Crickets?  The PN-G defense?  You say its garbage?  They made enough plays for the Indians to secure the W.  I'll take it.

Go Indians.  Peace.

I don't know what to expect.  I have not seen either team play in 2017.  I have seen PAM's #25 (Hines) from last year's game vs. PN-G.  He is quick, fast, and even after the first contact, he has balance and toughness.  I would make someone else beat me.  I would load the box and do my best to take away #25.  He can change the game from anywhere on the field.  Make PAM throw it.  If other Titans step up and make big plays in the passing game, then tip your cap to them.  Here's to an injury free game...hope it's a good contest that comes down to a few big possessions.  I'm interested to see the game on video and see how PN-G matches-up with both teams in a few weeks.

Go Indians.  Peace.

Major Applewhite leads the University of Houston Cougars into battle against the Texas Tech Sand Aggies at TDECU Stadium.

Go Coogs.  Peace 

5 minutes ago, akifan94 said:

Who is the soph. #74? The kid is massive. 

Shhhhhhhhhhh!  Don't ask silly questions.  PN-G does not have size, talent, speed, athleticism, or any of the necessary ingredients to be competitive.  We are just that little old school from landlocked Port Neches and Groves where there is no talent, coaching, or will to compete and win.  Just keep talking about PAM, Central, Vidor, Nederland, and the improving Lumberton and Ozen squads.  If you must discuss PN-G, then stay focused on the small DBs who do the best they can to keep everything in front of them and the undersized LBs who have to use what little quickness they have to avoid all of the D1 talent on opposing teams steamrolling through the district.  It's high school football...where desire, technique, and having small modest amounts of talent means nothing.  On the PN-G OL, don't mention #74, #79 or others.  Surely, it is myth about size over at PN-G.

Go Indians.  Peace.

Quote

3 hours ago, SFA85 said:

All BISD has to do is change the attendance zones of a couple of elementary schools east of I-10 and Ozen's numbers issues would be solved....

 

Would the majority of BMT residents be happy if the ISD had not closed/consolidated some of the schools?  Would there be more school pride and overall community unity had the ISD left open the following schools and required children to attend the schools in their neighborhoods?  

Hebert

South Park

Forest Park

French

BC-P

When I was in school, it seemed all of BMT had pride in their community schools.  I can remember BMT rallying around Hebert in the late seventies, rallying around French in 1984 ("Solid as a Rock" by Asford and Simpson).  I'm not discounting the success of WB, e.g., 1982 State Championship, but would BMT ISD be better or worse if Hebert, SP, FP, French, and BC-P existed in 2017?

I don't pretend to know the answer.  Just wondering if the concept of neighborhood schools and community pride would have boosted BISD's numbers.  Maybe not.  The increasing numbers of private schools have changed all public school districts.  The options I remember were public school, Bishop Byrne, and Kelly.  Now, there are too many to name...plus home schooling.

You think BMT will follow PA's path and consolidate to one large HS with mega numbers or keep the schools in place now?

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

The average CEO made 271 times the earnings of the typical worker last year, while more than 42 million Americans made less than $15 an hour.

Look no further for an explanation of the growing economic inequality and slow economic growth in the United States.

The average CEO compensation at the 350 largest firms in the United States, including cashed-in stock options, was $15.6 million in 2016, according to data collected by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. When the pay is calculated using the value of the stock options when they were issued, but not cashed, the average pay was $13 million.

RELATED: 

The average compensation package was slightly down in 2016 when considered as a ratio to what the average American earns. CEOs made 271 times the average American compared to 286-to-1 in 2015 and 299-to-1 in 2014.

Remember, though, that the era of celebrity CEOs and astronomical earnings is relatively recent. In 1989, the CEOs at America's top companies made only $59 for every $1 a typical worker earned, and in 1965 the ratio was only 20-1.

To understand how this pattern can add up, the news site 

 over the last seven years and found they were paid more than $9.7 billion. The Affordable Care Act did not slow things down, with the CEOs getting an average 11 percent raise every year since 2010.

Average Americans, meanwhile, saw their pay go up 2.3 percent a year over the same period, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In the past, I've railed against the buddy system at too many boards of directors that has pumped up CEO pay. A chief executive fills board seats with other business leaders who know that when one CEO gets a big raise, consultants will recommend every corporation give every CEO a pay hike.

RELATED: 

The problem is that astronomical pay takes money directly from the pockets of shareholders, who see lower returns because so much cash is going to labor costs. Since labor is the highest cost at most companies, CEOs routinely lay off workers and hire cheaper labor to boost company profits. Perversely, the boards then give the CEOs a raise for implementing layoffs.

Meanwhile 42 million Americans make less than $15 an hour, according to federal statistics. Most of them are more than 30 years old and have some college. The minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour for eight years, but if it were pegged to inflation and productivity gains, it would be $12 an hour.

RECENT:

When critics rail against the slow economic growth since the Great Recession of 2008, they too often forget that 70 percent of the U.S. economy is consumer-driven. If consumers can't afford to buy things because wages are too low, the economy can't grow.

That's why groups like the 

 want a higher minimum wage to stimulate the economy. Past economic data shows that higher wages for the poor stimulate the U.S. economy far better than tax cuts for the rich.

"The fact is that it's nearly impossible for anyone to live on the minimum wage in this country," said Keith Mestrich, president of Amalgamated Bank and a member of Patriotic Millionaires. "The economy is on the mend and we need to make sure all boats have a chance to rise. We need to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and we need to do it now."

RELATED: 

There is a difference between rewarding successful people and feeding greed at the expense of company shareholders. And boards need to get control over CEO compensation.

More importantly, though, we need to reduce the pay ratio by raising the pay of the average American worker. If nothing else, the 2016 election demonstrated that the American worker feels undervalued and mistreated. Raising the minimum wage would address that anger.

Failure to act at both the top and bottom of the pay scale, though, will lead to greater disparity, less economic mobility and a smaller middle class. And that would betray all of the work done in the 20th century to make the United States one of the wealthiest and most egalitarian nations on earth.

___________________________________________________________________

In the comments section, someone wrote:   In 1914, Henry Ford gave his workers a huge daily pay raise because he know that to sell his cars, his workers had to afford to buy them. His $5/day wage was more than double what most were making at that time. It is about the equivalent of $120/day now, which is about $30,000 a year or about $15/hr.

 

Discuss/debate...rail against those in the middle of the political spectrum that believe in capitalism, but also believe in social responsibility and taking care of people struggling to make ends meet (and, no, I'm not talking about people who are scamming government programs for "free money" ... I'm talking about the elderly, working poor, and children).  Reducing CEO pay is not the be-all, end-all solution, but the system seemed to work well in 1965 when the ratio was only 20:1 vs. what it is now at 286:1.  I'm not asking for socialism, just social responsibility so we can take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

3...2...1...anticipated responses:  "You're a socialist; you're a communist; who's going to pay for this; you support welfare kings/queens; you can't have it both ways, i.e., you can't be a free market capitalist and advocate for social responsibility; I don't want the government in my life; Texas should secede from the United States; Trump won, the voters have spoken; the issue discussed in the article is ridiculous; where is the evidence; where is a cite to an authoritative peer-reviewed article; this solves nothing; I'm rich and I don't care; I work for my money and I don't want to give it to the government; let the churches take care of the poor, etc."

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

 

 

 

WO-S has won 80% of its games over a 40-year period.  Think about that for a moment. Impressive.  Plus, they have a nice collection of what really matters, championship hardware.  Strong resume from a strong program.  Tip of the cap to Newton.  Solid argument for the #2 slot.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

7 minutes ago, baddog said:

If those were the only folks we had to take care of, it would be totally different. It's people like Big Girl who lie to get cheap insurance when she could afford her own. There is the problem, plus Medicare funds have been siphoned off to fund other programs so there is not much left for the deserving.

+1...agree 100% about taking care of the elderly, working poor, and children.

Go Indians.  Peace.

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Those that created pork barrel legislation are essentially the same folks that decide on what type of healthcare we have.

In general, true.  Individual legislators come and go, i.e., voted out, resign, die, but both major political parties are to blame for pork barrel legislation.  (R) and (D) share the blame for the problem.

14 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

Being 20 TRILLION  in debt, I would beg to differ!  The government is not good at doing much of anything.  With the exception of the military.  Which, by the way, is Constitutional.

The national debt results from pork barrel legislation; it's not the fault of Medicare alone.  I agree the federal government can, should, and must do better with the taxpayer's checkbook.  At least from the study conducted by USC, the Medicare program is paying claims competitively with private insurance.  Perhaps that's a start.

Go Indians.  Peace.

What are the specific differences in Medicare in 2007-2012 vs. 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017?  Cite a study that compares the pros and cons.  How did Obamacare affect or change Medicare?  The point of the study was the payment of claims.  In this particular study, the Medicare program competed about equal with private insurance (at least where federal law allowed competition; cf., prescription drugs where Medicare, by law, can't compete with private industry).  The study had nothing to do with enrolling the underinsured or uninsured.  This study represents the basic premise that there is one program where, after years of practice, the government seemingly got it right.  Is it perfect?  No.  Is it a total failure?  No.  It's somewhere in the middle.  It proves that if Americans work together, we can find a system that provides basic healthcare to the elderly, working poor, and children.  The Left goes too far with their platform and so does the Right.  Find common ground and move forward.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

Correct...keep reading...that is where the regulatory function comes into play.  We can reel in the pay of those non-innovating CEOs...let's give it to the workers in R&D.  They can use it to pay high premiums.   

Now, I gotta go.  Wife is tapping her foot asking me to get things ready for tomorrow's flight.

Go Indians.  Peace.

Historical norms are industry norms over time.

If Apple made life saving medications and those products were not affordable to the elderly, disabled, working poor, and children, then I would make the same argument against it.  To me, people matter more than money.  You may disagree.  If so, we can agree to disagree.

I'm not advocating for government control of private business.  I don't want bureaucrats setting price.  I don't want the government overtaking the free marketplace.  I do think the government and public interest groups should have a regulatory function and/or some voice in the debate.  For example, the FDA, OSHA, EPA, CDC, Consumer Product Safety Council, and the SEC, are examples of worthwhile government agencies and public interests groups that help industry and the public.

As with most things, public/private interests can share the stage.  Who defines each role on the stage, I agree that is where most of the debate gets rowdy.  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I don't want anyone excluded from the debate, e.g., private business, government agencies, public interest groups, etc.

Not a fan of ObamaCare.  The private insurance market had its problems, too.  People were left with medical care.  ObamaCare has not been the answer.  It's a failure.  But, we as a society should not just throw out the baby with the bath water.  There has to be a way that our society can create and a fund system to take care of the elderly, disabled, working poor, and children.  I know the majority on this message board don't want any of their income/wages/salary/profits spent on such programs.  I'm not opposed to paying taxes to help those in need.  I don't want a bloated government system that gets robbed by welfare kings and queens, but in an ideal world, I would like a system where those that need care can get it.

Politics = good healthy discussion/debate.

Off to vacation with family.  Back to reviewing the board in 2-weeks.

Go Indians.  Peace.

I would link the video, but I don't know how.  Go to FoxNews or You Tube.  It's there.

Go Indians.  Peace.

Excerpts from the article at the link above:

During the stop, Castile volunteered, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me."

Yanez told Castile, "OK, don't reach for it then" and "Don't pull it out."

On the squad-car video, Castile can be heard saying, "I'm not pulling it out," as Yanez opened fire. Prosecutors said Castile's last words were, "I wasn't reaching for it."

Excerpts from the article at the link above:

The dashboard camera shows the shooting itself -- unlike the Facebook live video that was filmed by Castile's girlfriend Diamond Reynolds in the aftermath of the shooting.

The video shows Yanez following Castile's car, then pulling it over. Yanez approaches Castile's car and asks for a driver's license and proof of insurance.

Castile then gives the proof of insurance to Yanez through the driver's side window. Castile is then heard saying, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me."

Castile had a permit to carry his weapon.

Yanez then reaches for his own gun, pulls it from the holster and tells Castile not to reach for his gun. There is shouting, and Yanez screams "Don't pull it out!" before he fires seven shots into the car.

Yanez's defense attorney argued the officer "did what he had to do" when he shot Castile. Yanez testified that he feared for his life after Castile refused to put his gun away.

36 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The ruling had nothing to do with the Redskins. 

 You've got to get past the fake news headlines 

Those that are interested can actually read the opinion written by Justice Alito at:

Under the Recent Decisions tab, click on:  06/19/17 - Matal v. Tam

or try: 

The total opinion, majority and concurring, is 39 pages long.  Worth a read.

I agree.

- Price matters;

- Innovators should reap a profit (if the innovator is a CEO of a privately held company, then so be it; if not, then give that profit to those who deserve it, i.e., the innovators and/or the investors);

- The pharmaceutical industry might find itself on safer ground politically if it remained closer to historical norms for the harvesting of social value; and,

- Higher drug prices spur more drug discovery, but they still don’t know how much discovery is enough or how high prices need to be.

Nowhere in the article does it advocate for drug companies to rip off consumers so CEOs can reap $10M-$20M or more.  If your telling me that the CEO is an "innovator", my response would be prove it.  If the CEO is not the "innovator" then give that profit to those who deserve it, e.g., R&D or the investors who made the R&D possible.  My complaint is not about a corporate entity recovering its R&D investment and making a profit.  The complaint comes when the recovery is outside of the historical norms for harvesting of social value...just as the article above points out.

3...2...1...the response will be that the marketplace will control the bad apples like Gilead Sciences.   Maybe, maybe not.  But, public scrutiny and government regulations have a place in the discussion.  Without public scrutiny and push back, maybe Gilead Science would charge $5,000/pill instead of $1,000/pill.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

 

The PD throwing Yanez under the bus is speculation.  Possible, maybe probable, but unknown.

Ms. Reynolds said Castille told Yanez that he had a gun, Yanez asked Castille for ID, and Castille reached for his wallet.  That is based on what a witness (Ms. Reynolds) heard at the scene.  More than pure speculation, but not conclusive evidence. It is some evidence. That is why I said in my first post that the jury must have seen or heard something more.

Regarding the standard: Reasonableness of a particular force, including deadly force, is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than someone with 20/20 hindsight.  Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation). An allowance for split-second decisions is just that, an allowance, or part of the equation.  An allowance for split-second decision making is not a blank check for the officer to use deadly force and then say, "I had to make a a split second decision, thus, I'm not at fault." Reasonableness is the issue.  Was it reasonable for Yanez to shoot Castille?  None of us know with certainty.  All I have to evaluate is what Ms. Reynolds said in her video.  I would like to see additional evidence, but I was not on the jury. The jury must have seen or heard something more than the video.

Revisiting a standard that allows someone to be shot when reaching for a wallet is not nonsense. The Supreme Court has overruled precedent in the past. It's not commonplace, but it has happened.  Plessy v. Ferguson used to be the law of the land; it's not now.  Illinois v. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas regarding the test to be used for determining probable cause. Before the Miranda, an officer was not required to read anyone his/her rights.

Like you, I would like to see conclusive evidence one way or the other.  I do believe that constitutional protections apply to police officers.  I do not want the guilt of anyone based on innuendo or wishful thinking or politics; and, I don't want citizens getting shot when reaching for their wallets.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

Therein lies the rub:  the standard of "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer."  Some officers disagreed with Officer Yanez's belief about his life being in danger, i.e., the police department for which he worked.  They must have disagreed with him because they let him go from the police force.

The standard is flawed if it allows an officer to shoot a citizen reaching for his wallet after being asked to produce his ID.

It would be interesting to read the testimony from the expert witnesses regarding Yanez's actions in light of the standard  "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer."  I'm guessing each side had expert witnesses and their views were different depending upon who retained and paid them for their opinions.

Did any of the officers on the scene testify?  If so, I wonder if they were asked about fearing for their lives?  I guess they did not fear for their lives, they didn't shoot Castille several times.

Go Indians.  Peace.

 

The video I saw was the girlfriend's recording (Diamond Reynolds).  Yes it was after the shooting, but Ms. Reynolds gave an accounting of what happened.  She was there; she's an eye witness. Castille was shot reaching for his wallet.  On video, you can hear Yanez saying, "I told him not to reach for it."  Ms. Reynolds said Yanez asked Castille for his ID.  Nothing on video about Castille pulling a gun from his pants.  Seems to me that Castille did nothing to escalate the situation or to warrant getting shot multiple times. I don't have Yanez's testimony about his explanation for why he felt his life was threatened, but the video and Ms. Reynolds' commentary are out there in the public domain and that is what the public is thinking about after hearing that Yanez has been acquitted.  I'm not anti-police and there must have been some evidence to support Yanez's actions, but I have not seen it.  I'm guessing the jury did see or hear such evidence.  They returned a unanimous verdict.  The police department did not agree with Yanez's actions.  They agreed to a work separation with him. The prosecutor must have felt the video was enough to disagree with Yanez's actions because he went forward with a trial.  Perhaps we will hear from the jury in a 20/20 or Dateline episode.

Your comment above:    "As far as they're being no gun or not seeing a gun, there is never a requirement for a weapon even to be produced in order to lawfully use deadly force."

If that is true, then we need to revisit when an officer can lawfully use deadly force.  It should not be OK to use deadly force when a citizen reaches for his wallet after being asked to do so by that same officer.

Go Indians.  Peace.

20 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Did anybody really expect a different outcome.

I did.  I thought the video released to the public was strong evidence against the officer.  What evidence did the jury see or hear that the public did not?  Not being a smart alec; serious question.  He told the officer that he had a gun, a license to carry, and when asked for his ID, he was shot as he reached for his wallet.  And, it was on video.  Officer Yanez told him not to reach for his gun; Castille was reaching for his wallet. BAM. Five shots.  The gun was never pulled by Castille.  No video evidence of the gun being pulled from his pants.  Again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not?  That video was a high hurdle to overcome.  Ten Anglo jury members and two African-American.  I read where the jury verdict was unanimous.  So, I ask again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not?  It must have been something.  I hope the discussion of this topic does not meltdown to name calling, or a racial back-and-forth blame game.  I hope the discussion sticks to the evidence and how the jury viewed/interpreted it.  I wonder what the explanation was from Yanez as to why he feared for his life?  No gun was pulled; it was his wallet?

Go Indians.  Peace.

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

If you reduce the CEO pay to zero, it would have little, if any impact on the price of the product.

Do you have cites to peer-reviewed literature to support that opinion?  Any studies to support that executive pay based on shareholder value and social consciousness would not affect price structure?  Maybe they exist, maybe they don't.  I'm not arguing for socialism.  It's an argument for finding a place in this world for both corporate profit and social consciousness to co-exist.  I think we need to examine all theories.  We are an advanced society and creating access and affordability of medical care and medicine should be on the radar screen of our priorities.  The value of life matters...for those that are elderly, poor, disabled, children, on death row, and inside a woman's uterus.  All life matters.  Surely that concept can co-exist with corporate profit.

Go Indians.  Peace.