Taro T

Interesting analysis. Thanks for the perspective. 2 questions: is there anything preventing the NFLPA recertifying at a later date (including while the lawsuits / negotiations are ongoing) if it so chooses? And, if the injunction is upheld and the lockout goes bye-bye, if the players recertify prior to an agreement being reached, what incentive do the players have to reach an agreement prior to January or so, when they have all been paid for the year but then they can hold out the threat of a strike which would cancel the Superbowl? It seems to me that D. Smith is very willing to play hardball, unless the owners capitulated big time I don't see why he'd pull that threat off the table. My concern in all of this is, I want to see an agreement (regardless of which side 'wins') in which the Bills remain viable long term in Buffalo. And I could see the owners with huge debt service on their brand new $1B stadiums being willing to throw owner unity out the window when the possibility of high outlays w/ no income streams start looking like reality to the 'big fish' when a recertified NFLPA starts chanting 'give us what we want or we strike.' I don't particularily care which side wins, I just don't want to end up having the Bills fans lose. I'd prefer it not come to it, but I'd much prefer to lose the 2011 season and have a system in place going forward that the Bills can not only exist but thrive, rather than have them play this year and be gone w/in the decade. If a strike isn't a plausible threat (presumably because there is no union to call a strike), I'd be more inclined to side w/ the players; but I haven't seen anyone address that possibility yet.

According to my friend that owns a gas station, though the rack price charged by the distributor changes daily, the station owner sets the pump price on his own after surveying what the nearby competitors are doing and where rack cost is headed. The distributor will assist the station owner in setting price if asked, but the owner has final say in retail price.

A calcium oxylate stone wouldn't be affected by cranberry juice. That's the really hard kidney stone that slices through the kidney as it moves towards the tube that takes it to the bladder; and that's the one that feels like you've been stabbed. The calcium oxylate has very low solubility (6.8 x 10-4 g/ 100g H2O @25C), so once you have one, it's either tearing it's way out or it needs to be broken up (via lithotripsy is a common method). I can believe that one is more painful than childbirth, and have been told that by a couple of women. (If childbirth is worse than that, then everybody should get mom something REALLY nice today.) A uric acid based stone is softer and is soluble (slightly soluble?, don't have data on that one) so it can be shrunk by drinking lots of fluids, which makes it easier to pass. That one feels like somebody punched you in the kidney, so I'd guess that it doesn't hurt as bad as childbirth. Don't know about the other types of stones, but those are the 2 big ones. Maybe the cranberry juice would help w/ some of the others. Vitamin C is very good at helping to prevent kidney stones, so an orange a day is helpful.

Thanks for the update.

I haven't seen any reports of WHICH ocean/sea he was dumped into. I'd guess that it was Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean, but they'd've easily been able to dump him someplace further away. If they have identified which crabs he is now feeding, my bad.

It was a home owner offed in a home invasion. Such a shame he wasn't using Brinks or ADT.

Or just smear a little 'x' or something along an edge of the mold.

Well, if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the guy that got the info train started, and it appears he was, then waterboarding was involved.

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't see anything there except a recounting that Osama was killed in the compound near Islamabad and that no US troops were injured. Was there something particular in there that merited the ?

So, any word on how long SNL ends up using that bit to open Weekend Update?

Perhaps it could have shaken out that Obama could have caught flack had this particular attempt to get bin Laden not been successful, but I would have been very surprised. It stands to reason that we've been close to getting him on several occassions over the past near decade. Other than the 'noose around him in Tora Bora' we haven't heard much about any of those missions. I don't see why this one would have been materially different than the other unsuccessful attempts to get him, had it not been successful. Either way, Osama's gone on to his 72 Rosie O'Donnells and Obama and the rest of us should enjoy it right now and then get back to stay at work. There's still a lot to be done, but this was a good weekend.

I truly doubt that, simply because if he'd done something to mess up this particular attempt at offing Osama, we wouldn't have heard about it. It would have simply been another evening w/ no news about bin Laden's death/capture. Congrats definitely go out to the troops that (directly and indirectly) got this particular mission accomplished. It happened on Obama's watch, he'll also get credit for it appropriately.

Whatever. I hadn't seen a thread about this here and didn't realize there was a thread about this over on the OTW board. If the mods want to delete this thread because there's one going on the other board, that's fine. Very surprised at the way it went down, but think it's awesome. Per Obama, no drones and no US injuries. Again, cool.

The bad news for him is they look like Rosie O'Donnell and smell like Roseanne Barr. May he rot in hell a loooooong time.

Good question. Per NBC News he is apparently helping draft the remarks himself. (Yes, David Gregory basically stated that and no, I don't know why.)

Apparently Obama will give a speech in a few minutes stating that Osama is dead. Cool.

Back in '85 according to TBN polls, a lot of fans wanted the Bills to take Flutie w/ the #1 overall pick. (IIRC, Felser was pushing hard for that pick as well. I know somebody at the Snooze was in favor of it, my apologies to Larry if I have him confused w/ a different writer.) Having that #1 overall pick would have been much better than the guy they chose.

To say that QB wasn't an addressed priority in '83 is simply false and didn't take into consideration what players were available in that draft. Hunter was far and away the best tight end coming out that year (no other tight ends went in the 1st 2 rounds) and the Bills' tight end at the time was Mark Brammer (who was serviceable) and his backup was Buster Barnett (who wasn't). When the Bills 'passed' on Kelly at 12, there was only 1 team left to pick before they got to pick again and there were still FOUR 'can't miss' quarterbacks left in the draft (Kelly, Eason, O'Brien, and Marino). Even if the Lions had taken 1 of those guys, there were still 3 others on the board. And the fact of the matter is, the Lions felt comfortable enough w/ Danielson and crew that they didn't take a QB. The Lions chose a fullback. It was much riskier to take Kelly at 12, and hope that Hunter was there at 14 than to go the other way round. Fergie was getting long in the tooth back in '83, and the Bills expected that they'd gotten their franchise QB for a year or 2 down the road when they picked Kelly. That he bolted for the USFL made the choice look pretty bad and made the Hunter pick look better. While technically, Kelly wasn't their 1st pick, I'd say it was close enough to put an asterisk next to that 51 years and counting.

But I don't think the general public will see this 'we've all got better things to do than worry about a birth certificate ... hey, let's talk about a birth certificate' as a leadership issue. I think they will see this as more of a reminiscence back to the Clinton years. (By that, I'm referring to the general perception back then of people that 'Clinton's doing a great job and Republicans hate his simply for being Clinton.' Regardless of what reality was.) I think they'll see it as 'these crazy Republicans were all over him to release his birth certificate and now he did and they start picking on him once again.' Because I doubt that the general public sees the distinction between the Republicans and the Tea Party and the 'birthers'. That's what it looks to me like Obama & his handlers are hoping for / expecting with the way this has (and likely will) play out. This is set up to be able to claim 'no matter what we do, they'll always criticize us, even when we do what they want.' He knows he won't get to pass anything he'd hope to pass from here through the next election. This is all 'do whatever it takes' to win again. Yeah, there's no leadership there. But that's not even on the radar now. And while those criticizing it as showing a demonstration of no leadership are correct. But it isn't about doing the job, it's about getting the emotional response from the electorate in 19 or so months. One needs to have priorities. And if Republicans are seen as keeping this (non-)issue alive, it WILL work to his advantage.

You answered your own question.

The slug is gone. They don't wear it at all. This summer the last traces of it (scoreboard, merchandise stands, etc.) will be erased from the rink. I've even heard talk that people that show up to the rink wearing one will be charged an extra 2 bucks / beer.

Reffing wasn't great, but that isn't what caused the Sabres to lose.

Keeping spending where it's at did seem to be part of your plan; if it isn't, cool. I'd like to see a lot (the majority) of corporate loopholes closed, but would also like to see the nominal rate dropped. Raising taxes on the 'super wealthy' won't come close to balancing the budget unless spending is significantly curtailed and/or you have a much broader definition of the 'super wealthy' than is predominant.

:huh: