Can't spell compromise without a promise

[Patrick.Ryan at westover.af.mil]

"What, me worry?"

 

I liked the Col. Klink analogy - very apt. I threw in my own above - I'd
have used "Spy vs Spy" instead but I can't draw pictures in this medium
to convey the message.

 

I disagree - even though the NBA is an overreaction league why hasn't
such action already been taken (and Snoopy, we don't agree on a lot, but
your suggested actions are much more worthy of true leadership under
adversity by being accountable, yet fair). I would bet the referee's
union would bring any such actions suggested by Snoop or otherwise into
court immediately with injunctions. 

 

And therein lies the rub.  You can argue both sides effectively - why
should all referees be "punished" because of the actions of just one
(innocent until proven guilty); conversely, wouldn't the referee's union
want to quickly and effectively clear themselves via such actions by
being transparent (integrity)? 

 

Of course, because both sides of the argument make some "legal and
moral" sense they'll deadlock and never budge from either position
creating nothing but the status quo.

 

In simple terms the era of the great compromise has been dead for a
long, long time. Current society would rather argue, accuse, dig in,
subpoena, object, litigate and obfuscate then actually sit down and
solve a problem with both sides making any sacrifice whatsoever. 

 
----------------------------
I was surprised at how terrible and terrified Stern appeared during the
news conference.  Another shoe is going to drop, you can bet on it ;) -
Asterix