Maggie's Farm

Though his brother, Eli, seems to own Tom Brady.

Interestingly, while I agree that most people look at wins as the be all to end all, I tend to look holistically at the nature of the sport. Were Fouts, Tarkenton, or Marino not premiere QBs simply because they didn't have 'the wins'?

Are Jim Plunkett, Trent Dilfer, or Brad Johnson great (or even 'good') because they have 'big wins'? Many people argue the case that "winning the Super Bowl is the determinant".

Wins are arbitrary things in some cases. I'd argue that Eli's two Super Bowl wins are odd outliers if you look at the course of the two seasons in which he managed to accumulate them. In fact, some people have listed his two Super Bowl teams as being among the 10 worst to ever make the Super Bowl (this year, losing to Washington twice, to Seattle or Philly - despite full strength or comparable in each game, disputing the 'injuries' argument).

Peyton was amazing and altered the game forever. Brady is very different from Peyton because Peyton MADE the Colts, whereas Brady is the beneficiary of an amazing system overseen by Belichick (want proof - look at Cassel's numbers the year Brady was out, and then compare it to how he performed before and since). Brady is a great QB, no questions asked, but he is a great QB primarily because of who he plays for.

Peyton has played for three coaches and been successful under all of them.

By the way, if I was Peyton, I'd retire. Nothing left to prove, and if anyone has ever had a back or neck problem you know the issues he's going to face trying to prove he's 'still got it'.

He has a much bigger hill to climb than Favre did with either the Jets or the Vikings (in his first season). He's got the skill set, absolutely. He could be very successful.

More likely, he'll take a hit and face some more severe damage. Why take the risk?

Because he's a competitor? That's the best argument, but at some point all competitors have to realize health issues take precedence.

Yeah, I'm sure the cash played a role.
I think Manning wouldn't have been happy playing mentor. He wants to play. He wouldn't have done the workouts if that wasn't his goal.

"Underemployed" is a term given to a variety of workers who have jobs. I was "underemployed" for a year when I was a contract worker at a very low salary. Until the company hired me full time, they had the right to fire me, and I was not given full benefits.

Once I was taken on full time, my salary became standard within the company's guidelines, meaning I got a raise, full benefits, and the company couldn't let me go without cause.

Was I working? Yep. Was I glad I was working? Yep. Was I fully employed? Yep. But was I underemployed - did I have the risk of losing my job quickly and easily for a variety of reasons beyond my control? Absolutely.

I've never taken a Carnegie course, though I've had them referenced in other courses I took.

I don't look at Carnegie's personal life as somehow directional regarding whether his advice works or not. It does.

I appreciate your humorous jab, but perhaps this fellow was introverted and just learning to 'get out'. I was that way when I was younger.

I read Dale Carnegie in college, before some interviews. It's all common sense, but not being the gregarious type, it was 'new information' to me. It's been transformative, too. I've become a very good speaker as a result of some of the information in that book.

In fact, I have a speaking engagement in April, so I took another speaking course just last week (offered internally by my company) and Carnegie's name came up just once - though it was very useful.

It seems Carnegie was giving a speech, and tripped on his way to the lectern. He dropped all his index cards, and scrambled to pick them up. He then gave a speech on humility. As he left the lectern, he handed his index cards to the next speaker who couldn't believe his good luck in getting Carnegie's notes. When he looked at the cards, they were all blank.

I can appreciate anyone who tries to break out of their shell, regardless if they use Carnegie or some other lesser known guru. Being introverted is difficult and debilitating, and unless you find yourself in a job (or work toward a goal of a job) which suits you, then you need to find ways to break out. Common sense, though his advice is, is not so common, particularly when you've been afraid to move outside your own circles.

Agreed regarding Rush. Except for one small, nit to pick.

Rush has been hung out to dry by everybody. Why? Because he called a woman a 'slut'. OK. He was wrong (and ultimately apologized).

But here's the rub:
Liberals use the term "slut" to desensitize people and raise awareness for issues they consider important (like the "Slut Walk")
Other commentators have called women of the Right "cunt" or "twat" and nobody on the Left is outraged. In fact, they chuckle and point fingers.
Rush is used as "indicative" of the Right, somehow he is the man we all fashion ourselves after. I'm no fan, I like some of what he says, find other stuff outlandish. I know people who like Rush, but view him as the Left views Bill Maher - a source of humor, pointing out absurdities of the Left and taking things to extremes.

I agree it's fine to criticize Rush, and that's part of freedom of speech. But the outrage regarding him? That's what's out of line.

What you missed - since you only paid attention to the 'headline', was what's beneath the numbers. The increase in the participation rate is the ONLY good thing in this report. It's a very good turn of events, and that much should be praised. But let's consider other factors:
1. Unemployment is a LAGGING indicator. It shows that the 'growth' we have had over the last few quarters had some impact. It's not an indicator of future growth, particularly if you consider some of the other points, such as:
2. 45,000 TEMP jobs. Yeah, underemployment is a bitch. I've been there. You're happy you're working, but you're not making what you know you're worth and you're barely paying the bills, not putting anything to the side for when the temp job ends. It's scary, and you cut back spending to the bone.
3. 91,000 birth/death adjustment. This is a statistical adjustment which happens every month as the statisticians attempt to discern how many companies were created or closed. The assumption is many new companies opened their doors - a good sign, but only a statistical assumption. Clarity comes later. Many of the birth/death jobs over the last few years have actually been washed out in later revisions of the unemployment report, when numbers were adjusted down. Perhaps we'll get lucky and these won't. Perhaps. But if gas goes to $4.50 and interest rates tick up (which they can, without the Fed), wait and see what effect that has.

In the end, this was a 'good' report, but by no means a "WOW, did you SEE these NUMBERS? We're going in the RIGHT DIRECTION." Because, it's only one report in which the most meaningful number (participation) moved in the right direction. If it keeps moving in that direction for 6 months, I'll eat my words and say it was meaningful. Until then, it's all just a seasonal thing due to mild weather.

I see. So they can do it multiple times, over many outlets, and as long as one of them apologizes, all is well?

Or is it that it's OK to say it about a public figure, not a private citizen who made herself a public figure?

I'm confused. What's the point you're making, that this somehow 'evens' things? Because you know full well it doesn't.

Let's analyze what you wrote.

You pull one single commentator out of the woodwork, one who is answerable to a large corporation with a public image, and decide to use him as the 'equalizer', of some nature.

Schultz is a tool. So, his experience somehow makes the outrage regarding Limbaugh fair. Sure. OK. I see where you're going - the whole 'morally relative' thing.

Meanwhile, Maher, Olbermann, and a host of others do the same thing without a single raised eyebrow or question regarding the nature of their comments - and they've used worse language than merely 'slut'.
Schultz is an opinion 'leader' (ha, with his ratings, closer to follower). Limbaugh is primarily humorist (according to my father, who actually likes and listens, he finds it more humorous than meaningful) and even his approach to Fluke was meant to add an outrageous humor to the event. The fact it backfired is meaningless, or meaningful, depending on whether you like him or not.
Schultz is no humorist, just a jackass.

I'm still confused by why Schultz is meaningful. Almost every right-wing commentator who uses a word or language the Left dislikes is dragged out and flayed. So I guess Schultz is the poster boy for even-handedness, in your world?

As I said, I'm confused. I wasn't aware you only need one guy to say "I'm sorry", when a host of others do the same thing without so much as a peep from the Left (because, after all, it's only Palin, or some other Right Wing female loser, and after all, they're all silly sub-human religious nuts, right?). This is what counts as meaningful to you?

Let's review what I wrote? Review it again. Did I say EVERY OTHER commentator on the Left goes without notice? No, I said "Other". Meaning many others. Not just one. But one is good for you. That's moral relativism, I suppose.