Mitch to have a Huge Huge Role
-
This annointment by Self is a good news/bad news thing for Mitch.
When Self hypes a 4-star, or less, player, it appears to mean Self desperately needs that player to produce big, because the adidas-recruiting-conveyor apparently didn’t produce what was needed.
The good news?
Self thinks Mitch is his best shot for patching the hole in his roster drywall.
The bad news?
It means Mitch’s development time is over and he has to produce good mudding and spackling now, or else at the end of the season he will decide to pursue his dreams at another program and Self will say something like, “We wish him the best.”
Men of the sea put it slightly differently: its fish or cut bait time, Mitch.
Carlton Bragg, recruited as a four-star, and absurdly hyped as a 5-star subsequently, found himself in a similar situation last season. Self had praised Bragg’s potential to the celestial bodies twinkling over Allen Field House on Big Monday night games. This young man could be a great one if he stays a couple seasons and develops. Ding, ding, ding! Warning, warning, warning!!!
Bragg was protected for a season, transmogrified from a happy bean pole to an incredible hulk, and then given a role he clearly was not remotely ready for. Bragg appeared to crack. Self kept throwing him to the water to sink or swim. He sank. He sank off the court, then on the court. Then he got we wish him the best.
Some players this works with.
Frank Mason was a best case scenario.
But make no mistake.
If Frank had cratered his second season, after being protected, he too would have gotten all the best.
If time waits for no one, Bill Self waits for no four star after the protected season, if the recruiting cat drags in anything at all.
Bill Self recruits for the future, but coaches for the NOW.
There are one, or two, development seasons, where any thing a player does in a game is gravy.
Next, comes production seasons. Players are given roles specifically designed to make the team win a conference title and 30 games. All that matters is fulfilling the role assigned. Fulfill it, even if you suck in other ways, and you continue. Fail to fulfill, and you are at the mercy of the recruiting fates.
Self appears to churn players like a fund manager churns stock. The difference between most stocks is very slim. Why hold one that has proven itself limited in upside, or an outright loser, if you can take a risk on another and get some sizzle of possibility into the portfolio to keep the investors taking risks on you and your fund?
Whenever a 4-star, or less, player fails to fulfill an assigned production role, he is likely to be wished the best. 4-star recruits are as plentiful as apricots in June. And they spoil fast, so you bottle the ones without bruises, and toss the rest.
In Self’s defense, Self appears an equal opportunity churner.
OADs get churned by Self the same as 4-stars. The difference is OADs don’t ever get a development season. OADs are assigned production roles immediately, even if they are rather limited sometimes. Take Diallo. The guy had as many fundamentals as Jay Bilas has working hair follicles on the top of his head. So: Self assigned him a production role that was the basketball equivalent of the width of a human hair on the side of Jay’s head, where Jay shaves what little still grows. Diallo was supposed to guard his man a little, block some shots, and rebound for, oh, 20 mpg max. A stick back or two would have been icing.
Had he been able to fulfill that role, Self would have been happy to let him jump to the L, or keep him and round him into something at least resembling a complete basketball player, instead of the Quantum particle of a player that he was. You remember quantum theory, right? That’s where the building blocks of the universe are quantum wave potentialities that don’t come into existence until they are observed, and the location and form they take on in observation depends on the observer and when and where observed from. OADs, even more than 4-stars, are quantum wave potentialities, not players, when they first get to KU. Non OAD Frank Mason by his last season of development was a “player.” He was real, not a potentiality. Everyone could see the same thing. OADs are quite different. Everyone sees something different in them based on where they are sitting. You can’t argue with 46% on a 170 some 3ptas. The quantum potentiality has receded into actuality. We had a winnuh! But with Diallo there are fools still sitting around seeing him differently somewhere from where ever they sit.
But Self is not a fool. He gave Diallo a production role the width of a human hair, and he couldn’t “getter done.” Diallo jumped. I will never believe for a second that Self tried very hard to persuade him to stay. Self is okay with recruiting quantum potentiality. But he is a confirmed Newtonian, when it comes to coaching. He likes real stuff that can do real things, while in adidas. He builds title winners and 30 game winners with real roles, not potentialities.
Sometimes board rats misunderstand the roles that Self assigns. Take Jamari Traylor. Endlessly many complained that The Jam Tray was a coach’s pet that never got good enough to get the minutes he got. Wrong! Self never gave The Tray a big role. Self was clear what The Tray’s role was: development the first season, energy the second season, and guarding and driving the lane once or twice a game the last two seasons. His injuries ensured he would never be given a wider role. But, as frustratingly unproductive as Jamari was in many regards, Jamari could always do the narrow role Self assigned him. The Tray would even do it some how, when he had no functioning legs.
Self is not so much a Soul Man (like Sam and Dave’s great song), or a sole man (playing the petroshoeco-agency complex game for talent maximization), as a role man (maximizing C-titles and 30 win seasons with assigned roles getting met at any cost).
Mitch, large, or small, your real production role has been assigned.
Lace up your adidas and produce now, or be wished the best.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Mitch isn’t leaving KU even if he struggles this year. He is a born and bred Jayhawk. Even if he wasn’t good enough to be on scholarship, he likely would’ve walked on at KU given the opportunity. Mitch came here knowing there was a possibility he never cracks the rotation and he doesn’t care because he has always bled Crimson and Blue.
-
@Kcmatt7 Jayhawkfantoo has been calling this one for a year. He’s shaping up right on time, when we need him the most. I love the kid. His face looks like he’s 13, but there’s a tough dude behind that youthful mug. I’m thinking a fu manchu might do the trick.
-
Mitch will be a nice piece to the puzzle. He’s got some game and size, and just needs to focus on his “role” for this team. He still seems to be a bit awkward and slow at times, but I’d give him some minutes.
-
U r right. If he fails to deliver, and were willing to give up his ride and walk, he could stick as practice fodder. Not, if not.
But I bet the kid man’s up and comes through.
-
We all knew Mitch was going to be a 4 or even 5 year player and his contribution would be mostly in the later years. I am glad that Coach Self is bullish on him.
-
@stoptheflop I agree with your very first sentence.
-
@jaybate-1.0 We all had the same hopes, dreams, and well-wishes for Bragg too.
-
@JayHawkFanToo One of my son’s just spoke to a family member within the hour & said that Mitch’s brother Miles is at a camp in NY & has been offered a scholarship at West Point. He has posted on twitter with Sam Cunliff replying “You are better than Mitch.!!”
https://twitter.com/Milesmatthew2?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
-
@globaljaybird
A big honor to be admitted to any of the major military academies.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Great family, extremely happy for all of them. Third son Max is next in line behind older bros. Dad Matt is one proud Father today.
-
Love the interview and hope it translates consistently when it counts for LFoot as the season progresses.
-
@globaljaybird
Is Miles taking a prep year? Kind of hard to find info on him. Would be awesome to have all the kids at KU, if that’s what they wanted.
-
@BShark Haven’t asked. Am not one to pry so if one doesn’t offer I don’t inquire
-
Yep, and Mitch’s probabilities are slimmer than Bragg’s were at the moment Self said Bragg could be a great one.
We watch these situations with interest, because there are young men’s lives at stake. Perform and something fine might happen. Fail to perform and its Tempe, or UNLV, or some place else in Basin and Range.
College basketball is brutal.
They are not paid, so that not for profit employees, like head coaches and ADs in revenue generating sports can divert huge salaries for themselves; that’s the plain truth former NCAA Director Walter Byers made so clear in retirement.
There are things to love about college basketball.
But the truth is the truth.
Its a scam of players that gambling got in on first, then TV, and now the petroshoeco-agency complex are drawing blood from.
Its staggering what NOT paying the players proportionality to the revenues they generate makes possible.
It makes Bill Self’s mongo house and $10,000,000 per year possible.
It makes the AD’s salary and all the construction contracts he hands out possible.
It makes the NCAA’s “member institutions” billion a year to pay for all the minor sports possible.
It makes the TV commercial revenues that support 24/7 sports networks possible.
It makes the billions made by big gaming on college sports betting possible.
College basketball: Its Scam-tastic!!!
But a college degree would be a lot better than nothing at all, if only they would actually structure it so most of the players had an extra year or two, of tutors and typical college classes (instead of easy classes), so they could practice the long hours AND graduate.
-
It makes Bill Self’s mongo house and $10,000,000 per year possible.
Where did you get the $10M figure? His salary is less than half of that and even with bonuses and endorsements it is not even close to $10M. Maybe you know something the rest of us don’t.
-
Oh, wait, I’ve got to do some dry washing.
Okay, okay, okay, I, I, I…
I must be wrong.
How could I possibly be right?
Oh, jeez, oh, pete…
I am wracked with doubt and engineered dissonance.
Oh, my god, what’ll I do?
What’ll I do? What if I’m wrong. What if if Coach Self’s salary and supplemental income from basketball related activities (leaving aside entirely the coupons he clips), isn’'t the reputed $10M?
What if I have made a faux pas?
What if I’m…not perfect?
Oh, noooooooo, Oh my god, puhleeeeeeease let me be right about the reputed $10M.
Pretty please, pretttty, pretty, pretty, please…
Oh, no, no, no, I better go double check.
No, no, I don’t dare do that!
Wh-wh-what if I’m wrong???
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
- Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it – especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
- Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.
- Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.
- Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
- Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
- Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain critical reasoning – simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
- Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
- Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
- Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
- Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man – usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues – so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
- Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made – but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just aren’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
- Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
- Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
- Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
- Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
- Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
- Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
- Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’
- Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
- False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations – as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
- Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
- Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
- Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
- Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
- Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
- Avoidance They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
- Selectivity They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
- Coincidental They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
- Teamwork They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
- Anti-conspiratorial They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a News Group (NG) focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
- Artificial Emotions An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin – an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later – an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game – where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
- Inconsistent There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
- Time Constant There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
Source: Anonymous
-
@jaybate-1.0 Every once in awhile, people aren’t being argumentative but simply seeking info. I, too, was wondering if you had seen anything for the 10 mil figure. It was worth inquiring about because that would be a total comp package about, I think, two or three times what is usually discussed. Among other things, it would make KU’s coach unapproachable, and that is worth knowing.
-
-
buffer space.1
-
more buffer space 2
-
Still more…
buffer space 3
-
Do you think the pros, shills and disinformation wannabes really do even some of the stuff on that list?
Team work?
Good cop, bad cop.
Rapid response.
Delayed response, when stumped, to work out a strategy?
And so on.
I used to doubt it, but now? Well, I’m wondering a little?
How about you two?
Only a few years ago, the lists floating around on the internet were less than half that length.
Is the domestic disinformation industry tooling up?
Hey, maybe the disinformationista are inflating the lists with disinformation, eh? That would be a sweet irony, wouldn’t it?
But i’m so wracked with self doubt I can’t be sure.
Howling!!!
FWIW, I’m reading a good history about the rise, supremacy and fall of the domestic railroad industry in the 19th to late 20th Centuries. Really fascinating analogue for the evolution of the domestic internet. In the 1990s, quite a few institutional theorists and policy wonks used the 19th Century railroads as an analogue for studying some of the dynamics of internet development and what kinds of regulations might produce what outcomes and asymmetries of cost and benefit with the internet. Its fascinating how close the parallels have actually played out in some ways, but not others. Both railroad histories and the studies of regulatory strategies IMHO foreshadow some of manipulation of the internet, especially the weaponized abuse of information and disinformation at many levels of participation in the information networks.
Railroads and internets. The same, only different.
It might behoove you two to read up on some of this stuff.
Fascinating and edifying.
-
@jaybate-1-0 5 mil, 10 mil, 15 mil…what does it matter? They are obscene amounts no matter the level for coaching a game. Even if it’s the best game ever. What ever happened to Ed O’Bannons law suit? Hyperbole is a completly foreign concept to several of the board rats.
-
We pay our entertainers much better than our edumacators…hmm.
-
Good question about OBannon et al case.
I recall it was reported Obannon’s side won, or maybe reached an out of court settlement(?), but I do not recall reading any stories about where the reputed monies being made off marketing of player likenesses are now going. Do you?
I recall some suggestion at the time that the NCAA and member institutions should consider increasing compensation to players, but I don’t recall any stories indicating that player compensation was increased equivalent to the amount of the relevant revenues the case reputedly claimed was made from marketing their likenesses.
I have wondered.
-
@dylans Agreed. Really is useless to quibble over the EXACT amount when it is silly that some of these people get paid so much for having a part in a game that involves putting a little ball in a hoop. It is pretty ridiculous when you think about it. Sure, we all love it and watch it a lot but really? Tens of millions of dollars? Things are bad all across the country and the world and this sort of money is involved in entertainment? Doesn’t seem right but that is how it is and it is unlikely to change anytime soon.
-
@jaybate-1.0 I checked Wikipedia and a few links, which I won’t put here because anyone can find them as easily as I did.
The District Court said athletic scholarships could be full cost of attendance, and that athletes could get deferred compensation of up to $5000 a year.
The Appelate Court said yes to the full-cost scholarships but no to the deferred compensation.
The Supreme Court declined to review the Appelate Court’s ruling.
The Power 5 conferences now allow full-cost scholarships.
-
OK so McDonalds says hey you’re prefect for a commercial we want to do. Sign on the dotted line and you get 10 million dollars and $20,000 dollars for every time the commercial is aired. You’re going to be like what about the teachers, police officers, and fire fighters?
Really?
-
Thanks so much for the assist on that.
So, if I understand correctly: its the appellate court judge that favored interpreting the law as not setting a precedent for allowing deferred compensation of even 5,000 measly bones players and then the USSC favored not setting a precedent for deferred payment of players of the same measly amount by refusing to hear it on some legal grounds indicating they were satisfied the appellate court judge had interpreted the law correctly by denying players deferred compensation of 5,000 measly bones for their likenesss having been marketed and exploited without their permission. Hmmmmm.
I wonder how the appellate judge and the SC justices would find, if the case were to have involved marketing their likenesses and making millions of dollars off appellate judges and USSC justices without either their consents, or their profiting from the exploitation, while they sat on their benches hearing cases and practicing hearing cases most days and many evenings of the week, while receiving only scholarships for getting bachelor’s degrees at a local state university, along with room and board, and complementary petro dress shoes and petro robes to sell on the side, instead of six figure salaries, life long careers, medical and retirement benefits, and clerks to ease their work loads?
Just a thought.
-
@jaybate-1.0 From what little I read, the argument of the appelate court was “where do you draw the line?” Give an “amateur” a free education and (s)he is still an amateur, but compensate h(im)(er) monetarily and there is not even the pretence of amateurism.
The Supreme Court is asked to hear 100 times more cases than they have time for. They have to make choices.
The kids need to get together and refuse to sign the waiver of digital rights. “They won’t stand up for themselves”, so they are officially complicit. Being in a “free country” means you are responsible for what you do “freely”, even if it’s “fake freedom”.
-
DoubleDD said:
OK so McDonalds says hey you’re prefect for a commercial we want to do. Sign on the dotted line and you get 10 million dollars and $20,000 dollars for every time the commercial is aired. You’re going to be like what about the teachers, police officers, and fire fighters?
Really?
Huh?
What?
No. You completely missed my point.
-
We need some basketball, man. Italy can’t come soon enough.
-
@KUSTEVE I hear ya on that. - - I hate these summer months. - - So ready for some B-Ball and even when Italy does arrive - - it’s only like what - -4 games? - -just to tease lol - - - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
The point is that the worse the economy the more we pay our entertainers to take our minds off of our troubles. Instead of looking for solutions (more education perhaps or more determination) we bury our heads under sand. We turn to many forms of entertainment to distract us from our every day life. It’s pretty much what an alchy does or a druggy for that matter. Everyone needs a distraction from time to time, but the amount of pay they earn is a sad indictment upon society.
It’s a point I don’t care to make time to explain properly. Sorry if you don’t get the gist.
