Two-Gun Pete

And universities know this. Think about the process of getting into/accepting, and then enrolling into college: A kid takes the ACT/SAT, THEN goes on their campus visits, THEN applies/gets accepted. By this point, a child's underdeveloped sense of consequences may have already been overwhelmed by the beauty of the campus, how hot the coeds are on campus, or how cool the football uniforms are. THEN, the family gets their financial aid letter from the school; the child may have already made up their minds to attend the school with the best lazy river, whether or not its worth it to them. Lastly, the child picks the school to attend. Marketers know that if you go into a store and pickup an item, you're ALREADY halfway on your way to buying it, whether or not you can afford it. With colleges/universities, "the sale was closed" [of getting a student hooked] well before the cost of attending was worked out. For me, I'd turn the enrollment process on it's ear. I think it would be better to: 1. Have the kid take the ACT/SATs, 2. Apply for financial aid/MAX loan amount available, based on a kid's forecasted future earnings [akin to getting pre-qualified for a mortgage], 3. Apply for acceptance to a school, who then 4. Send back how much out of pocket/how much one would have to borrow to attend, and THEN 5. A family can go on their campus visits. [akin to touring a house, once you've got the mortgage prequalification done] 6. Lastly, a student could accept/reject an offer to attend a school.

I really wish this was the case. But, in my practice, that hasn't always been what folks shop for. In the video ron posted, schools are competing for future students on terms of useless luxury items that have zero educational benefit, and zero benefit to a student's future earnings. Like lazy rivers, rock climbing walls, hell, even the quality of the football or basketball program. [In all my years of hiring folks, I've never once given a rip about the school one went to, and how they placed in the AP Top 20.] OTOH, as I've posted, schools have completely unfettered access to virtually free money, with complete and total impunity. Loans are NOT underwritten, and are NOT subject to proof of future ability to repay. Calling student loans a "social good," but exposing folks to a lifetime of debt servitude is The Law of Unintended Consequences in action. The result of unimpeded flow of free money into universities, while a complete lack of underwriting loans is a several-decades-long track of college costs increasing without any end in sight, while borrowers now have more student debt than we as a society have in credit card debt.

From Yahoo.com on PLUS loans A few things that struck me as interesting: A blue collar family ended up owing half a mill in PLUS loans. ..."It’s also easier to accumulate heavier debts, because the only cap on parent PLUS loans is the total cost of attendance, minus any other aid provided...." ..."The Education Department views these loans — as it does all student loans — as “instruments of social insurance policy and not traditional debt,” which is why they are not subject to traditional underwriting norms, a spokesperson said." ..."Currently, “there are no repercussions if the parent can’t pay and defaults in the future,” said Fishman of New America. “It is ‘free money’ for the institution.” I see this sort of thing from time to time at work. And I think it would help to do something about proving one's ability to repay all types of student loans, to include these moronic PLUS loans.

Yeah, I saw that you'd posted it already. I highlighted those specific portions, because bmags was claiming the exact opposite of what that link said. That aside, "herd immunity" is a best-guess estimate, in any case. In a massive, continental-sized nation such as ours, it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to pinpoint the exact percentage. Nature on calculating herd immunity So when Fauci gave an estimate, it wasn't "a lie," as the conspiracy theorists moronically bray about. Its an estimate. A best educated guess. In any case, it's a theoretical number, not an answer to an arithmetic word problem in grammar school. Herd Immunity Is Probably Impossible to Achieve These two links taken together, to me means that even IF Fauci "didn't tell us everything," who gives a flying fuck about that? Herd immunity is a guesstimate at a percentage. Even with Herd Immunity, outbreaks and flare-ups will still occur. And in our population, Herd Immunity may not even be achievable. IOW, if he guessed incorrectly and/or didn't tell us everything (i guarantee your MD doesn't), it ain't "a lie." And it certainly ain't some moronic conspiracy that mouthbreathers read on their farcebook "news" feeds. All that said, I can agree with you that maybe there are better communicators available in that industry. And I can agree with you that an 80 year old Fauci probably should hand off his work to the next generation. But "lies?" "Conspiracy?" Fucking laughable.

Not that they'll read this, but here we go: Politifact Check on Fauci and masking Politifact check on Faucis emails Plus all of these from USATODAY But hey, since some dude who wore a bow tie on tv told me so, a lifelong public servant and physician just must be a "Con artist," amirite? Say, do braying shouters on TV have to take an oath of duty? Do physicians have to take some hippocratic sort of oath? Just askin'....

1. Earlier, you said that if only Fauci said we should wear masks, then they would suddenly be produced domestically. Now, after you posted an example of an imported mask, it was "ok to import them," during a worldwide pandemic, and shelter in place orders. Make up your mind. Because if you're going to blame Fauci for not ramping up domestic production of cloth masks, then move the goalposts to "importing them is fine," then your overarching argument falls apart. 2. I think I understand where your confusion comes from when you read the phrase, "surgical mask." This is an example of a surgical mask: SURGICAL MASK The blue or yellow thing with elastic earloops and an embedded wire for your nose. Those are and were the most common masks I've seen, both here in Chicago and other places I've been over the past year. They're also almost entirely from China, and were not in widespread circulation at the start of the pandemic. Hell, there were folks working in Healthcare facilities and nursing homes that had a hard time getting these. Or, some had to procure their own. (I have clients that worked at Rush who had to buy some of their own and/or recycle a used one back then.) 3. I agree that mistakes were made, by Fauci and others. But, were still waiting to hear about all the other "lies Fauci told." (I'm also waiting to hear from rabbit how a guy appointed by Reagan suddenly became a capricious, self-serving partisan, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.) Insofar as "preparation for the next pandemic" goes, the previous administration had one gifted to them: PANDEMIC PLAN If you didn't like that plan, and the lack of usage of it going into this pandemic, take it up with Mr. Bleach Injections. And sure, if there's an argument to replace Fauci with someone else, I'm also game to hear suggestions.

1. Yes, Fauci said that there wasn't a supply publicly available then. But he ALSO said that masks weren't 100% protective, which made him (then) cast doubts on their efficacy as a public health measure. See? People can have more than one idea at the same time. Especially a medical doctor. 2. You do know that different strains of influenza spread in different ways, right? In the same way, a new (or NOVEL) coronavirus might spread differently than other strains. Once the scientific community established the route and there was supply, they recommended their use. As an aside, show us where Fauci, or any medical professional does NOT recommend hand washing, coronavirus or not. If you aren't washing your hands, you're a fool. 3. And yet, you previously claimed that the US could produce all the cloth face coverings they need. (We can't. ) And then, you post a product that ain't even made here. There aren't "millions of times" more factories here to make garments of any type in the US. We've become a nation that overwhelmingly imports our clothing. (And as you said, pretty much every other type of product.) Say, by the way: You promised us other examples of "lies told by Fauci." Lets see them. Also, exactly what would anyone have done differently, when your boss recommends drinking bleach?

Given the pads' injuries, the cubs just might be better than them. At least, right now.

Meh, did you see anything to suggest that the SOX were better than the yankmees?

1. There was at that time, both incomplete science insofar as face coverings, AND a lack of supply. 2. You just described the DEVELOPING science of what was a NOVEL coronavirus. IOW, using the scientific method to adapt approaches as new information becomes researched, developed, and interpreted. Ya know, kinda like going from a "flat earth" model to later accepting a globe as the shape of the planet we inhabit. Or Copernicus discovering a heliocentric solar system. So using your "ex post facto" pseudo-analysis, using current facts to critique what fauci was doing then, doesn't really work. 3. And this is really important: That mask you just posted is IMPORTED. IOW, not from the US of A, as you had claimed was so important earlier. There was and is not a sufficient supply chain for domestically produced cloth masks. There ain't a lot of clothing you or I wear that comes from this country. Kannapolis doesn't make fieldcrest towels any more. It ain't 1985 any more. And that's one reason why we don't have a lot of folks wearing cloth masks, and really, why this wasn't a realistic alternative then, or now. Oh yeah, and why most folks, including health care types, use the cheap Chinese made types.

Getting swept by them will lead one to believe that the yankmees are better than our SOX. At least, this roster, without Robert and Jimenez. We'll see where the two teams are relative to each other once injury luck starts to balance out.

Agreed. The amount of pants-pissing about the incredible pile of OF injuries, leading some to want to make a panic buy is stoopud. Yes, I think the yankmees are better than their record. And to your point, when they get healthy and right, look out. Tampa's also right there with anyone else in the AL. And yes, LAD will be even better, once they get healthy. But this roster, regardless of who they can realistically add at this point, while subtracting anything from the MLB roster, probably isn't as good as others. Now, IF TLR managed the BP like a modern manager would, AND if there was someone who could provide ~80% of what Kopech can, then maybe it could work. IOW, if Hendriks was used like Hader is, and there was another pitcher down on the farm to take Kopech's place, maybe Kopech-for-Yelich MIGHT work. I kinda doubt it, though.

Disagreed. I can tell you that pretty much everyone who has worked in Healthcare in the past decade has probably never used a non-chinese made mask over that timeframe. So having masks made and available to the American public is not a matter of snapping Faucis fingers, and magically making them available. Either to JUST Healthcare workers, let alone to all 340MM+ residents of the US. As to making cloth masks magically available, look around you: a year+ into this pandemic, the overwhelming majority of Americans still wear the cheap Chinese surgical-style masks. So yes, ramping up and building a sufficient and reliable supply chain that was entirely domestically based just was not going to magically happen then. FFS, it hasn't happened NOW, a year later. (Though it probably should, IMO.) Then you had all the mask Karens who all got their jollies berating the Costco manager for forcing them to mask up. Ya know, the so-called "sovereign citizens" who all "had medical conditions" that exempted them from masking up in the first place. So yeah, there was an availability issue, and there was a public acceptance issue as well. There was and is no magic bullet to these issues. That said, as a matter of public health and national readiness, there are certain commodities that absolutely need to be made here.

Oh, I agree with all of this as well. I doubt that Kopech would be moved. The thought exercise is this: 1. It is clear that this roster (without Robert & Eloy) is probably not better than the yankmees in the AL, and certainly not better than LAD in the NL 2. If an addition is undertook (i.e. subtracting Kopech from this roster, and a bat added) would THAT roster be better than the yankmees or LAD? To me, I say "no." I don't think that Yelich, or really, ANY addition, while subtracting Kopech from this roster is enough to be a WS favorite. Without Kopech in the pen, I think this team is not good enough. Without Robert/Eloy, I don't think the offense is potent enough. So, I think the right move is to tread water with the #5/6/7 OFers (Leury/Hamilton/Vaughn) until the #4/1/2 OFers (Engel/Robert/Eloy) get back.

Yes, that one was already known. To the bolded, what other "noble lies" are known? I'm game to hear them.

Basically. If you can find one that fits. IOW, it's not a long list of potentials for this type of deal. This is about as close to what it would take for Kopech. Except that isn't Yelich a below average LFer, not a RFer at this point in his career? I'd think he'd check a lot of boxes if he was still a RFer. That said, if this was the move to make, who takes over Kopech's role in the pen for THIS season?

Thanks for including some links. However, none of them illustrate any potential conspiracy, nor any means for any of the purported conspirators to have benefitted in any way. A big part of The Scientific Method is to use the information that is currently available, WHEN it is available. So, when it was thought that masks didn't work, Fauci didn't recco their use, for example. When it was shown to have some benefit, Fauci updated his recommendations. Like a doctor and public health official SHOULD. At no point did Fauci communicate anything that was contrary to what was known about the disease at the time. And at no point did Fauci communicate things publicly that was contrary to the public interest. And most importantly, at no point did Fauci communicate anything that benefitted him over the well-being of the American public. And nor did "the media," as far as I've seen in these links you've shared. Ya know who DID do all of the above? Mr. Hydroxychloroquine. Mr. Bleach injection. Mr. "One day, it'll all go away."

Yawn. Literally none of what you accused Dr Fauci of supposedly done has any merit. Based upon the knowledge of the disease, at the time it was known, it was communicated correctly to the American public. At the same time, the scary-sounding "corporate media" had generally reported what was known, when it was known at the time. If anyone was "incompetent" in his response to the pandemic, it would have been the previous POTUS who disregarded the pandemic response template that his predecessor had put into place. Insofar as your critique of the (sic) "corporate state media," it sounds rather underpants gnomey. It also sounds like your critique of "Mr Fauci:" exactly, Cui Bono? What does the scary-sounding "corporate state media" get out of deliberately telling lies? What does DOCTOR Fauci get out of whatever you're accusing him of having done. (Oddly enough, you haven't exactly elucidated what either Fauci or "the media" have done, and how they would benefit.) What? Are they sipping snifters of brandy in front of a roaring fire in their lairs in their hilltop mansions, planning their takeover of the world, like a fucking cartoon villain? Finally, I'm game to read new viewpoints, if they make any fucking sense. I politely asked you to tell us what crime do you accuse "the media" and "Mr Fauci" of having done. I politely asked you to explain exactly what these people would get, and how they would benefit from these illusory, vague "crimes" they supposedly committed. So far, you've swung and missed.

Good to know. Its still a bad idea to overspend on a closer. And, I'll write it again that I hope he keeps this up.

There is no "Liam slander," any more than anyone said he sucks. I (and others) have said he's good. I (and others) have said that overspending on a closer is dumb. And in those posts you quoted, thats exactly what was said. Well that, and that no one is "just bitching" about "being cheap." I mean, just look at the "Liam slander." I mean, clutch your pearls! "Sure, Hendriks is and was better than Colome."

Its debatable as to what he will be by age 35. Every source I've looked at, to include spotrac, CBS, NBCsports, and ESPN, and others call it "3 years, $54MM."

Totally understand this. But, no one said he sucked, his contract is indeed 3 years, $54MM, according to Spotrac, and no one who hates big contracts to closers is "just bitching" about JR being "cheap." Other than that, those were good posts by ChiSox we enjoyed together as fans.

Sure. Just for you, I checked This link, which says he signed a 3 year, $54MM contract. $54MM ÷ 3 = $18MM AAV. But hey, who's counting, amirite?

So, let's summarize your posts: 1. You engaged in hyperbole in saying that people said he sucked, but later you "weren't serious." 2. You deliberately understated Hendriks' contract; Spotrac has his AAV as $18MM, not "$13.5M AAV." (But hey, who's counting, amirite?) 3. Your next bit of hyperbole is that anyone who points out that overpaying for a closer hasn't worked out for this team, and maybe there are other needs are, each and every one, just "bitching" about the Sox being "cheap." (And not that an AAV of $18MM could be used elsewhere, because in your words, these people are only "bitching.") Did I get your posts right?

Ok, let me try to understand what you're posting here: 1. You're claiming that all of "The Media" reported that COVID-19 was not lab created. 2. You're now claiming that all of "The Media," both here in the US, and across the Western World, conspired together to "do a 180." QUESTION: Does that make any sense at all? Sub-question: Does "The Media" include water carriers for the previous administration, or is this just a ginned-up verbal device to sound as scary as possible to the weak-minded and naive? Now, you're calling for Dr. Fauci to "be investigated." A few quick questions for you: 1. What, exactly, would you "investigate?" 2. What purported offense has occurred here? 3. (Most importantly) Can you spell out what, exactly, would be Dr. Fauci's means/motive/opportunity to offend? (IOW, "Cui Bono?") 4. Do you understand the THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and how it works? Thanks in advance.