TPS

Happy thanksgiving all.

sounds like he's describing the TPP.http://rt.com/usa/wikileaks-tpp-ip-dotcom-670/

that was funny.

don't you mean Cheerios? we don't want all of them, just the nice ones. The dicks can stay in Cali....:-)

Young single graduates would probably want to give it a try in the valley, then, if they want to start a family and buy a house, they'd want to move back here...There's no doubt that Buffalo is making a turnaround, and I'm happy to be a part of it. The icing on the cake will be a Super Bowl victory in January 2015.... To each their own.

I've been in the area since 1990, and over this time the economy and population has slowly declined. There were times when I thought things were turning around, but, more often than not, the old guard and crony system seemed to drag it back down. Things are different this time. There is new business leadership that is finally breaking the influence of the old guard, those who would push for big-box, magic bullet developments as antidotes for the economy. These big-box projects would then be used to dole out contracts to the handful of big developers who were part of the network. I think two major events changed things. One was the public backlash to the Bass Pro development at Canal Side; and the other was Cuomo's creation of the "Buffalo Billion" economic development initiative which put two "outsiders" (Howard Zemsky and UB president Tripathi) in charge of the process which acted as an end-around to the Andrew Rudnick-led old boys network. I don't think it's a coincidence that Buffalo's lack of development during my first 20 years here coincides with Rudnick's tenure over the local business chamber the Buffalo-Niagara Partnership. This tech hub is one of many good things happening in the region (for example, the Ford plant is adding 350 new jobs). While it's certainly not out of the woods yet, I do think WNY has reached an "inflection point," in that it has stemmed the tide of decline, and is slowly starting to grow again. Yes, people here are excited about this project and the potential it creates for more (the project is patterned after the nanotechnology model that has been a boon to Albany). And it's ironic that it will be built on the site, or ashes, of Republic Steel, which is representative of Buffalo's decline. So, yes, we poor Buffalonians are excited about this "little" project (and others) because we believe that Buffalo is finally experiencing a renaissance. No, it will never grow like Sun-belt cities, but that's ok with me. I'm a native of SoCal, and if I were given the choice to live there again or Buffalo, I'd choose Buffalo. I prefer the slower-paced quality of life in this place known as "the city of good neighbors" than the car-choked freeways populated by the diaspora who have checked into the Hotel California.

Gosh, if we only got rid of lawyers now, all would be well. The problem with your story, and it's a problem with most of the right-leaning types, is the belief that markets work. All we need to do is make "good laws" and all of those "I can never tell a lie" corporations will fall right in line... Do you really think if we eliminated the regulators that big corporate interests would not influence the laws to their favor? That's why I said your idea is dumb and idealistic. You really think eliminating lawyers and regulators would "eliminate" corporate power and influence? What exactly would be the counter-weight to corporate power in your idealized world? The market? That's the propaganda that's sold by corporate interests and you righties swallow hook, line, and sinker. Don't let government interfere with the markets, so we corporations can control them. Wealth=power; and power=control. The laws are shaped and made by and for the wealthy. There are two economies in this country. The dominant economy is controlled by the wealthy and big corporations, who make the laws and have captured the government. Then there are all of the small businesses (AND farms) that struggle to operate in a system that's designed for the big players. It's this economy that you guys on the right think you're supporting when you make your arguments, and that's exactly where you act dumb and naive--you are supporting the factions that control the broader economy. You've tried to paint me into your typical liberal bogeyman caricature. When it comes to politics, I've stated for years here at PPP (even before you got here) that I haven't voted for a major party candidate since 1992. The system has been captured. I believe we are closer to a fascist state at the national level than a democracy. Notice, I didn't state what the solution should be (yet). I never stated it was more regulation. You think all it takes is good laws. Laws won't matter if you can buy those who interpret them... Is there a solution? There have been two periods where the wealthy corporate interests have been pushed back: the Populist movement and the New Deal. The Tea Party and Occupy WS were two populist movements at opposite ends of the spectrum. It appears that these threats to the system have been or are being dismantled. If the people of this country are too apathetic or too distracted to take it back, the we will continue on the road to serfdom. And all of the good laws you hope for won't amount to a hill of beans...

You really think that's the solution? "Just get rid of regulators and make good laws." You're as dumb and idealistic as your liberal bogeyman. Have you noticed that "corporations are people" now? How did that come about?

Governor Cuomo was in town to announce the deal. Two firms to start, investment of $1 billion plus. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/buffalo/high-tech-hub-for-buffalo-includes-state-funding-15-billion-from-2-firms-20131121

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2013/11/20/how-hackett-convinced-ej-to-let-it-fly/ Good piece from BB.com

I'll try to simplify it for you: 1. The ethanol mandate was bad policy pushed by ADM, Cargill, et al. They also pushed for the subsidies as part of the policy. 2. That mandate helped increase corn prices. 3. ADM makes much of its money on the logistics, but they also are big ethanol producers. As such, they don't care much about Ag prices, since they make money whether prices are high or low. They have, however, made a good bundle off of the ethanol subsidy. 4. Saying the don't care about ag prices does NOT mean they don't care about their own business and making it more efficient over time. 5. None of this has anything to do with economies of scale in farming leading to lower prices or the subsidies to actual farmers that has been your focus. 6. Large corporations who dominate an industry shape policy to their liking, and they "pay" politicians to vote for what they want. The chief regulators are industry insiders who will never bite the hand that will feed them once they go back to the private sector. Do I "blame" ADM? No. I blame an apathetic public that has allowed the capture of government by business.

I thought he would be a nice 7th round find; I thought wrong.

Since the Bengals game, the D has reduced its average yards/game by just over 100 yards--from 395 to 291. It's nice to have the starting secondary back and getting used to the system.

Danm! He had a good game.

You could walk to Coles... an the Monk...

Marrone gave the DBs a lot of credit in his presser yesterday. If the first read isn't there, then that extra tick to find the second is about all it takes for the Dline to get there.

I think the important point to take from Hackett being on the field is it's great to have his energy there reinforcing the O. Despite his belief he had to be upstairs for his own good (to stay focused), the benefits from his infectious energy outweigh any drawback.

Not quite. While Walmart is relentless about pushing suppliers to keep prices low for their retail end buyers, ADM doesn't care whether prices are low or high because they are the middleman. While they may dictate to farmers, they dictate based on global S&D--they can't control the weather and other global conditions. Regardless of the prices of corn and soy, they make their money on transport and storage; they suck off the ethanol teat subsidy; and they also make a good chunk of change in the futures markets, since they have better info than most. The original point made was that ADM et al don't need the ethanol subsidies, and those subsidies aren't what create economies of scale in farming. The ethanol subsidy is relatively new, and it benefits ADM as an ethanol processor. And, in fact, the ethanol subsidy has caused corn prices to rise. Again, ADM is NOT the reason for lower farm prices. As the middleman, they don't care what the ultimate price is (for the most part). So, no, they are not some entity (like Walmart) that helps drive down prices for the poor. More often than not, they prevent prices from going lower....

more often than not, the run game comes down to "who wants it more?" Pitt wasn't supposed to be a good run D, but they looked like they were last week. On the other hand, the bills have run the ball against some very good Ds. So I guess I'm saying it's a toss up--I don't know if they'll be able to. I am pretty sure EJ will have a couple opps to go deep, and the game will depend on him hitting those.

For some reason, a lot of people like to post all of the negative articles about Buffalo; I don't mind. Things are just fine here, thank you very much. Please keep up the negative press so things don't get too crazy here...we're doing just fine.... http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6787

Dude, you sound like an academic. ADM doesn't farm. They are monopsony buyers. They usually dictate to agri-farms what to produce, and what price ADM will pay. ADM makes their money on the logistics of transport, storage, and also processing. Much of their subsidy comes from the ethanol subsidy that everyone here seems to agree is BS. They influence policies (and subsidies) that promote the use of corn and soy which are their biggest markets. They want the ethanol subsidy; they want the sugar subsidy, because both benefit their processing business. As for your unrelenting focus on economies of scale, yes, big agri-farms get most of the farm-related subsidies which stabilizes their income--that was the original intent of farm subsidies. No body is harping on that but you.

jets have a great run D, so I think it will come down to EJ--can he make a couple key long throws?

Hmmm...you agree that economies of scale have zip to do with subsidies, then go on to harp on how the economies are necessary to keep prices low. What's the deal? Are you having an internal debate? Do you have a minimum daily word count to hit?

Thanks for making my point--economies of scale (and efficiency) have nothing to do with the subsidies.

from BB.com: http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2013/11/13/marrone-answers-criticism-for-manuel/ For the record, I thought EJ and the O was turning the corner in the Cleveland game, so I agree.