finknottle

We have a lot of points to make up in only 31:30.

Brees is 17/18 at the moment. I'm not sure, But I don't think I've ever seen as high a percentage after, say, 12/13...

The thing that bothers me the most about the TD-version Bills is not that they suck - I've been a fan far too long for that to matter. What bothers me is that they never, ever win against teams that are better than they are. (And don't give me any crap about beating the NFC West leaders last year...) I just watch the Ravens- Redskins. The Ravens stink, they know it, they know their season is over. So what did they do? Stick it to the Steelers! Just once I'd like to see the Bills do that again...

I'll take anybody. It's the principal. He has been failing to get it done for too long.

I hope he runs for a workman but pedestrian 60 and we get a win. Drew Rosenhaus would like him to outshine LT too.

Right - if it was a factor, it was because he stewed in silence for four weeks. The worst thing that could have happened to him was all that press about how getting angry and hungry helped him. We want him angry, not thinking about being angry, and not thinking that the key to playing well is nothing more than acting angry. I'm hoping he didn't buy the hype.

mmm... nice to hear, but I'm not bputting any money on it.

I agree, he has to get hot. My big worry is this: all the reporting this past week about how he played angry, had a chip on his shoulder, a man with a mission and all that worries me greatly. In my experience the way to make anger work for you is to quietly do something about it. When you discuss it in public as has been done all week then it becomes a crutch instead of a lever. Saying over and over that you're mad as heck and am going to play lights out because of it, is a good predictor that you are not.

What if we lose Gray and Clemants? Suppose the Bills go on to finish 6-10. Just how infatuated are we with MM in that situation? Maybe we bring in somebody new as HC and let him choose his own cronies...

Then I will have to rely on my trusty tin-foil headgear to carry me through this.

I think it might have to do with the fact that most of their speeches are given after hours when everybody has gone home and the chambers are empty, for the benefit of the C-span cameras. A lot less pressure! IMO it is criminal that the cameras are not allowed (or is this an urban myth?) to scan the chambers and show that there is nobody listening, let alone debating...

I think it's what cool Mickey (the "mimbo") told George to do on Seinfeld after George caused him to fall while rock climbing.

By that logic they are also being told that, if they choose to live in this country, they forfeit any fundamental right to control the laws they live under. Quick, everybody - to the militia arsenal!

Fair enough. That and Mickey's explanation will take some mulling.

I know little about the formalities of appeals, but my guess is this: If they dismissed it without comment then the rodeo would have raged unabated. Debating whether the 9th circuit is evil and activist and liberal is popular enough without adding fresh logs to the fire. I think they laid out their reasoning to make clear why it was being rejected. Of course, IMO they should have simply returned the paperwork with your explanation written across the front in red pen.

Everybody agreed that parents have rights - hence the form. The argument was whether or not they had exclusive rights. I do think you might be misreading it. School boards are elected (at least in my area). The fact that they delegated a task to somebody (whether paid or a volunteer) doesn't matter - they are responsible. That's the way our system works, in everything. Do you think congressmen write their own legislation? Most of the time they have not even read all of what they submit (at least that's what they have claimed in the past when a politically embarrasing element has emerged). It is often written by a mix of the people who want the legislation and some under-paid interns. So back to the school board. If they are running a system where they are not using quality people (ie the volunteer) or providing adequate information to the parents (ie the consent form), then ones beef should be with them. Vote them out. Here's a flip-side argument which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned. Do people who don't like this ruling think a parent should have the right to sue a school board for teaching Evolution? For teaching ID? For mentioning God? For mentioning supply-side economics? Shouldn't parents have the exclusive right to control what a child is exposed to in school, in essence a veto? If not, isn't that an infringement on my exclusive right to control what my child is exposed to?

WM talks like he thinks he's the greatest back when he has yet to prove over time that he is a top 5 back (probably reads too much TBD...) Throw in the fact that Drew Rosenhaus is his agent, and he's gone when his contract is up if not before. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a superbowl team in recent years in which most of the offensive money is invested in the runningback, which is what our position will be if we keep WM after a 2000 yard season or two...

67.

No different from the fact that "legislators" don't need to take the views of the people into consideration before letting loose with any other program that is this moronic. Would you consider a court that affirmed this to be activist? In both cases, the bodies setting policy are (theoretically) answerable to the people. And in the case of local education, parents have the added option of opting out of the public schools (try opting out of State and Federal laws... )

Honestly, it is simply amazing how this ruling can be explained over and over again and you still get off-base blather about the feds trumping parental rights, about activist judges legislating from the benches, ... Crap Throwing Monkey was correct in intimating that my first impression was correct: this forum is a retard-rodeo. Should we be outraged about the survey? Sure. But anybody who is still getting mad at the court about this (let alone the feds) instead of the local school board is simply too clueless to ever understand it.

The court did not say the state trumps parents authority on what their kids will be taught. It said that the school board trumps the parents authority. The school board is in turn answerable to the parents. It's like this. The legislative branch can make a law that effects your children: they can't drive untill they are 16, say. The courts will (unless there is a constitutional reason to do otherwise) rule that you have to live with it. In this case the school boards put together some dubious curricula. The courts ruled that you have to live with it (though it's not clear what that really means). If you don't like the curricula, change it through the political process. But you can't claim a constitutional right to control what they are taught if you choose to have them attend. (Please note that I'm only going by the one piece I've read - I will have egg on my face if I read in tomorrows paper a drastically different account.)

And anyway, if you want to push the Chamberlain example you ought to push it back to Reagan. One truck bomb at a marine barracks and we pulled out of Lebanon. That sent an unfortunate message, a blueprint, to those in the region who wanted us out.

I'm confused. How would killing Osama in the mid-nineties have prevented the attack? By all accounts he was never a 'hands-on' guy, just a man with some bucks. And not the only one. If he were taken out of the picture the cells would have cooked up the idea anyway, got it blessed, and gone ahead, much as AQ activity is going on now. Or do you think he is instrumental in the recent AQ activity in England, Spain, Egypt, Iraq, and Indonesia?

And I don't know why, but there is something psychologically different about the AFC West teams - familiarity, I suppose. But they seem to have our number at home in a way that no other division seems to.

Actually, this sort of thing annoys me greatly - front offices claim victory no matter what they do. Cut all the players and replace them with yours? Wow, you really built the team! All of your draft picks still on the roster? You really know how to draft! You cut all of your draft picks and have a bunch of UFA's starting? You really know how to find undiscovered talent! You just can't lose.