Taro T

Tim, I know you addressed this prior to the Buddy Nix signing, but haven't seen anything since. Any thoughts on whether Modrak ends up staying and any thoughts on changes below his level w/in the scouting department? Thanks for keeping these threads going.

Of the 3, Patterson is far and away the best. How truly sad is that.

Are you trying to imply there's a masculine version?

So which fonts are hoax fonts and which are proof fonts? You could save the MSM a lot of time by pointing this out to them.

Let's see: McGroder hired from w/in - not so good Polian hired from w/in - best move EVER Butler hired from w/in - still had a strong team but set up cap issues Donahoe hired from outside - not so good Levy hired not from w/in but w/ obvious ties - not so good Brandon leading GM by committee - slightly better Nix hired from w/in - ??? Basically, I don't see how they've done the same thing repeatedly.

You very funny.

Sorry, you lost me at "Unemployment worse. False." How is unemployment not worse today than it was on January 19?

The "command and control" is simply putting greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act PSD provisions. And, your instincts are good in not liking the sound of that.

Who says you can't be on both lists?

Can't recall who said it 1st, but quote was "Democracies can only function until the electorate realize they can vote themselves money." For a long time we've seen our elected officials hand out money like it was free candy. The current batch steps it up a notch (or several).

Probably not. Sorry 'bout that. Nearly English translation is: it appears that EPA is planning on regulating carbon dioxide under a portion of the clean air act (the portion dealing with prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) which doesn't seem to be set up to regulate carbon dioxide. PSD regulates sulfur oxides, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, organics, carbon monoxide, and ozone depleting materials; carbon dioxide doesn't fit any of those categories. EPA could probably declare carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant and regulate it under a different portion of the clean air act. Under either scenario, the EPA is proposing limits on how much a regulated (major) source could emit that are far greater than the limits under either portion of the statute. Meaning they plan to develop regulations for only a fraction of the facilities that they would be required to regulate by statute. Following the statute and declaring carbon dioxide a hazardous air pollutant would make pretty much every publicly used building out of compliance with the regs. The news reports make it appear that the EPA realizes they can't regulate literally everything (yet) but they REALLY want to regulate CO2; so they are not only planning on making stuff up by regulating CO2, but they also plan to make stuff up in regards to how they will regulate CO2.

The reason they want to do it IS clear. The legal justification they are using almost definitely isn't as straightforward.

Probably. The news reports are saying that the EPA is planning on regulating CO2 under PSD regs (thus the 250 TPY major source threshold). I don't see how they do that as CO2 isn't a SOX, PM, NOX, hydrocarbon, CO, or ozone depleter (photochemical oxidant). I could see a warped interpretation where they could regulate it as a HAP, but that would lead to even lower major source thresholds 10/25 TPY. The news reports also state that EPA arbitrarily wants to implement a 2,500 TPY MS threshold, but there is nothing in the CAAA that give it the authority to set its own thresholds above those in the CAA or amendments. So I don't see how this survives its 1st court challenge unless Congress revises the CAA again. I didn't see the press release on the EPA site yet, so I'm not sure what justifications they are giving for the plan.

I doubt that it would long term, but it makes sense that it would short term. There are a lot more incentives for gay men and women that aren't in a "committed long term relationship" to keep their homosexuality "in the closet" than there are for straight men and women. While a man would likely introduce his girlfriend of 1 month to his coworkers if he ran into them out in public, it is less likely that a man would do the same with his boyfriend. The random sample of gay couples that are willing to identify themselves as such to polltakers or researchers would be expected to have a higher percentage that are in a "lifetime commitment", than a random sample of straight couples as straight people just starting down the relationship road don't have to be "outed." As gay marriage starts, it makes sense that a higher portion of those choosing to get married are the ones that are committed enough to jump through the hoops (taking a trip to Massachusetts, dealing with their own state not recognizing the marraige, dealing w/ "gay-bashers", etc). As it becomes more commonplace, it makes sense that eventually there'll be "Vegas-weddings" where the bride (or groom, not sure how they decide which is which) wakes up wondering just what the frig they've done and how quickly can they get it annulled.

Missed the SNL he hosted. Will have to catch it when it's in reruns or maybe on Youtube.

While your thought is logical, it is incorrect. If the Bills don't sell out a game in Rich Stadium, the game will not be available to Sunday Ticket Subscribers in the Ra-cha-cha and Syracuse markets. Just because we pay a few hundred to watch the games on the telly is no reason for us to be able to see them. Which really stinks for the people in the Syracuse market, because no portion of the Syracuse market is currently in the blackout region (but a small sliver was when CBS took over the AFC games) so Syracuse is grandfathered into the blackout which didn't occur in Syracuse until CBS took over the rights. I expect the NFL network game in TO won't be blacked out there if it doesn't sell out, but do not know that for certain.

So are you going to get 1 (or 2) of them 1st Aid Kits? "I heard you got cut." (whisper, whisper) "Oh, CUT, cut."

The budget deficit is $14 Trillion?

Huh? So, basically you're saying they're now Connericans? (Or maybe Connericrats?)

They hand out the Nobel Peace Prize. Now if that doesn't set them up for exceptionalism, I just don't see anything qualifying for anyone.

Right now I am expecting to see a 3 way race between a Gingrich type, a 3rd party fiscal conservative, and the incumbent. And my expectations of who wins that race, could be 1, but probably will be 3. Which stinks, because we desperately need a fiscal conservative running the ship. I am still hoping, but not expecting, something will happen in the next 3 years to have the Republicans run a true fiscal conservative (which I don't see any way of happening) or somehow the 3rd party candidate actually becomes viable.

So did Pol Pot. How'd that work out?

Tim, Any word on how the firing went down and what the next steps are?

Yeah, it's 10 months too late, but at least it is a move in the right direction.

Could it be true? Pleeeeeeeeeease be true.