NFL Salary Cap

Here is a useless post that I felt like sharing...The NFL has a salary cap that each team can spend in a given year.  Some teams spend every cent, while others have extra space to sign future players or just save money. According to, the Browns and the Colts have over $50million in un-used cap space for this year. With so much room, they are missing on a unique opportunity to retain players in the long-team (and not hurt their cap flexability).  Basically, instead of signing a player for $40million over 4 years, at $10million/year (random example), they could sign the same player, but pay him all of his money this year. For the rest of his contract (after year 1), his cap hit would be almost nothing, opening up more space to sign other quality players. Of course, there is some financial risk, but very little risk on the field. Having un-used cap space is just inefficient.

Judges are people

I am listening to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh speaking before Congress as he is vetted for a position on the US Supreme Court. Like previous nominees, he just said "My personal belief will not impact my decisions".  This very concept does not make any sense. If you're personal believes don't impact anything, than why are you more qualified than anyone else. If all judges say that, why do they differ on their actual judgements. It is a complete cop-out to say that personal opinions are not relevant when they are clearly extremely important.

Real News

As newspapers get attacked as fake news, why don't they start running historical articles that showcase how they uncovered corruption, or publicized dangerous situations, or generally added to the quality-of-life of society. People need to be reminded that most of these newspapers have spent decades telling the truth, with a positive impact, and they are doing nothing different now. Was it fake news during Watergate or the investigations into the Catholic Church (or thousands of other local, national, and international stories). They need to questions why their news is all the sudden fake? They need to remind people of how they built their reputation (in order to save it).

Does it matter?

If a politician that advocates for all the policies that you love, and also happens to be a proven liar, do you care? What if that person was a proven criminal? This is the question that probably will be answered in this country. For decades, Donald Trump has had to deal with a number of legal problems and usually comes ahead. Part of his advantage is that his organization is completely insulated, with no outsiders ever let in (either as investors or senior staff). As a private organization, that fully utilized every last loophole, they built a small empire (very small, by NYC real estate standards). However, it seems that Trump's most loyal confidants(historically) are being put in a very tough position. If any investigation finds evidence of illegal activity, it is likely that Trump's former allies will save themselves, receiving sweet deals to tell the entire truth. If that truth makes it clear that Trump has knowingly broken the law, will anyone care? More importantly, wil…

NFL Protests

What if the NFL just let players protest whatever they want. If their original statement was "This is America and people can protest whatever they want, whether it is high taxes, war, police violence, or civil rights. We encourage everyone in the country to passionate advocate for the things they believe in."  Followed up with, "In regards to the current protest, the NFL clearly opposed unnecessary police violence, on any kind, against any person. Overall, the police do an amazing job of protecting citizens and maintaining law and order and we are grateful to the millions of officers around the country. However, we should all be against unnecessary police violence. Players are protesting something that everyone should be protesting. The police are supposed to protect us and they should do everything they can do to rid themselves of any bad apples, bad precincts, or bad policies. Although the NFL's policy is to stay neutral on any issues that may be considered politi…

Blind Justice

When a person is on trial, what is the point of having the accused in the courtroom and visible to the jury. The accused should be judged based on the evidence,  not of how they look. Numerous studies have shown that both judges and juries have tendencies (on average) to adjust convictions and sentences based on race and gender.  If we want a more fair Justice system, why not just make that impossible. Don't have the accused visual to the judge or jury; and don't use their real name or anything else that could be indicate a person's background. This wouldn't be optional, even for people that think their appearance would be helpful. Of course, if somebody's physical nature is part of evidence, it can be entered with the judge's approval.  What is the downside here?


What if Russia, China, the US or any other power started teaching all their children to be hackers and computer scientists. Could they develop the refined skills to jump a generation ahead of other countries. Of course, in countries like Russia or China it would be a lot easier to hide these efforts or convince the public to get on board.  Would America respond by forcing our next generation to be programmers and coders (probably not). So image a country with millions of hackers, organized like an army, and state-of-the-art technology.  They figure out one seemingly reasonable skill, which is to  make it impossible to trace their hackers back to their country.  We already know that hackers can infiltrate the highest levels of our government and institutions, and just imagine if their skills continue to outpace ours. What would happen if they attacked, on mass, against as many US based locations as possible. They might not bring down the Pentagon, but I'm betting that their army (w…