That's No Moon

Mr. Food reference aside, I think that's still a no. Even if they put the oeuf de caille on top.

I realize this is blasphemy for some, but no part of that looks even remotely appetizing.

The table thing is a little embarassing, yeah.

Calling it now, Coleman doesnt make the 53.

Yeah that still bothers me sometimes. You try to think back to who was in the room when you were speaking but of course you can't remember because who tries to make note of that at the time? I still saw the professor from time to time afterward. I never brought it up. It's not the sort of thing you want to grandstand about being correct about. For the record, yes I am still allowed to fly on airplanes.

I hesitate to click "like" on that but I work in special ed and my younger self worked in some really hairy places and saw some really hairy stuff. The stuff I see now is very tame in comparison. My 2 cents, we don't know a lot about this kid to be damning the caretaker. We don't know why she was there, how many kids she was supervising, or what the kids history was. I've had kids who had a PCA for issues that had nothing to do with violence. I've taken a group of kids to the mall for example. There were 5 of them and 4 of us. The point of doing it was to try to teach the kids how to behave in that environment. Sometimes they'd do some interesting stuff and the people in the mall or wherever had no idea what was going on but it was important for the kid to be out in the environment to learn. On the other hand, I know there are plenty of situations as described where some kids with some serious emotional issues go out to public places, again as part of them learning to deal with it. Typically, though not always, those kids tend to have more staff assigned on an outing because to be in that setting they've already done some serious stuff and are on people's radar One thing I can almost guarantee though is that the aide is really poorly paid, not nearly as educated as you'd think they should be and they had no say over how many staff went on this trip. Blaming the school district is the common answer. What problem haven't we assigned to the schools to fix? That example of the Parkland kid is a good one. He's old enough to make his own decisions legally. He's able to turn down certain things or say he doesn't want to go to a certain school. The District can fight it but it's very time consuming and they often lose in the end. There is a legal need to have a kid in the least restrictive environment where they can succeed. If a kid isn't doing anything beyond the scope of a typical high school kid you can't move them out and even if you do, then what? There is no real inpatient mental health system anymore in this country. Everything is out patient and the patients control whether or not they participate. Unless you are an immediate danger to yourself or someone else they will not hospitalize you, period. They might hold you for 48 hours depending on the state. some places are easier than others to involuntarily commit a person for 48 hours than others. Of course, even if you do the work needed to give someone a 48 there needs to be a bed available and depending on where you live there may not be one, in which case too bad. You are out of luck. This is but one of many situations in our country that are screwed up and wrong but we lack the focus and will to fix them because they require uncomfortable conversations and the expenditure of money. What we have done to mental health in this country is shameful and many of the problems were created out of good intentions to fix other real problems. Takeways for the group 1. let schools teach, 2. not everyone can handle outpatient care 3. we need a place for those people to go that isn't jail, the street, or the morgue. End of rant.

It sucks being right sometimes doesn't it? Sorta like an undergrad presentation I gave in 2000 where I postulated that terrorists would figure out that airplanes are giant flying bombs and would hijack them into to fly them into things like the WTC because the WTC was engineered in the 60's when the biggest thing in the sky was an Itty bitty 707. I got a C on that. It was too far fetched.

I miss when we all argued why Napster wasn't stealing.

I could have listed tons more. Tons. Going back to the play in question, the safety didnt drop his head. He hit the player with his shoulder and his head up and got flagged anyway. They are crippling the game with regulation and more and more games will be decided by officials rather than players. Football is already a substantially different game than I grew up watching, before 1995.

FWIW, leading with your face is leading with your helmet the way the rule is called now. I also think players have been hitting this way a lot longer than 1995. Jack Tatum - basically the entire film is a penalty now Ronnie Lott Dennis Smith - again almost the entire Top 10 is illegal now Chuck Cecil Chuck Bednarik - one of the most famous plays in NFL history - penalty today I could go on and on. Let's not wax poetic about the good old days when football was clean. It wasn't. and also FWIW, nobody has told me what the safety in last nights game was SUPPOSED to do other than let the guy score a TD in front of him.

1:30 is the beginning. Here's the thing. Jump. You just launched yourself headfirst, it's impossible to jump and NOT do that. The player was in the process of jumping to make a play, he hadn't even left the ground yet when contact was made. When contact was made (1:59) his head was off to the side and he hit the player primarily with his shoulder in the chest. There is glancing contact between the facemask and the receiver's arm. How ELSE is the safety supposed to do his job on this play? I'm asking seriously because unless there is a legitimate answer they just broke the game with this rule.

That's not what I asked. If you can't make a play on the receiver in the endzone to break up the play how do you defend that play other than breaking up the ball? Simply tackling the guy isn't good enough, they still score. Saying you have to make a play on the ball gives a HUGE advantage to the offense in that they can run 6'5" receivers or 6'7" TEs out there who are guarded by 6' DBs and if the DB makes too much contact with the receiver he will get flagged for DPI anyway. Any team that isn't exploiting the intermediate to deep middle of the field with large players now is foolish.

And I also saw a play that was the scenario I suggested. Seam route into the endzone to a tall player with a ball thrown high over the trailing DB. The safety came over and hit him in the chest with a shoulder to break up the play. Flag thrown. How precisely do you defend that play? The corner had good coverage and the safety rotated over. The only thing you can do now is try to play the ball which again gives a massive advantage to the offense.

Success is there to be had by those who can figure out how to exploit what is ALMOST illegal and who can be creative. To me some of the new rules seem a little bit contradictory in terms of safety. You have 8 guys penned up 10-15 yards from the kick who aren't allowed to block until the ball is caught or hits the ground. OK, well that means they will have to retreat on the kickoff and not block in that initial 10-15 yard area. Which gives the kicking team more time to run unimpeded down the field which will inevitably lead to a bigger collision. I would think, if you were wanting safety, that you'd force the kickoff team to engage inside that 10-15 yard box rather than not. That those players aren't allowed to block at all regardless of where they are until the ball is caught or lands also leads me to believe we will see a TON of mortar style kicks that are intended to land around the 15-20 yard line. If you have a group of fast players who can't be touched until the ball is caught you could force a fair catch on a kickoff if you did it correctly. On windy days this rule is going to be crazy. It also opens up a bunch of new surprise onside kick opportunities. Again, 8 guys have to be within 15 yards of the kick. They will need to have at least 1 man deep which means there will be, at most, two additional players between midfield and the goal line. That's an awful lot of space to lob a pooch kick into when your players can't be touched when the ball is in the air. When I saw these rules I thought that a guy like Steve Tasker would have devoured people in this scenario. It makes a guy like Marcus Easley from a couple years ago more valuable. I wonder how Robert Foster and Cam Phillips tackling is.

That's good advice.

There are jokes in there regarding meat and patties and buns but I wouldn't want to break decorum.

Name and town please. My favorite local place is Taqueria Moroleon in Avondale, PA. Just across the DE border on Rt. 41. Lots of Mexicans in the area due to the local mushroom industry so there is some really good food.

Could be worse. We haven't had a run of high 90s/low 100s yet.

It's particularly disgusting today for only being 85 degrees. 87% humidity on a sunny day is uncalled for.

Arrachera a la Tampiquena Molcajete is also good

He really needs to switch towns. The fishbowl of Buffalo is so small there is no way for him to lay low. Also, exclusive video from a high level New Era BoD meeting, provided by Dunkirk Don

Not necessarily. If there were other executives, or even underlings who got wind of this and were pissed all it takes is a call to good ol' Timmah to get the media poop storm started.

Sounds more like some people at New Era weren't pleased to have Russ on board.

Every word was true. Good times.