Taro T

Nah, 5-11 or 6-10 teams rarely get the #1 pick in the draft. If the Bills are as bad as I fear they'll be this year, hopefully we get a new coach. I doubt it, but we can hope. I'd be surprised/shocked if we're bad enough for Bledsoe to get replaced by Polian, but we can hope.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Tim, have you heard any reaction from the (Bills or Eagles) players on Peters being traded? Sorry, I haven't read through all 90 threads on the trade, so if you have already adressed that, my bad.

Did I miss turn back your clocks 18 days, and is today April 1?

No we didn't. The only way we had surpluses was by including monies going into social security. Monies which have already been allocated for other, future, spending. That was the point of Al Gore's "lock box." It's like taking out a mortgage for $100k, having after tax income of $50K, and spending $140k, knowing your after tax income will be $50k for the foreseeable future as well, and then believing you are $10k in the black that year. You aren't, you are $90k in the hole. If you spend another $140k the next year, you are in deep doo doo.

In fact, this bill doesn't cut taxes. Every single $ the government spends is a tax. Some of the taxes are collected today, and some in the future; but either way a $ has to come out of somebody's pocket. And whether you are taking from the rich and giving to the poor, taking from the poor and giving to the rich, taking from the middle class and giving to the middle class, or some other permutation, you are "taking from one and giving to another." Someone puts money in (again, either today or tomorrow) and someone else gets to take it out. As you state about, in this case someone in the future will have to pay so we can spend today. (Although I'd be very surprised if there aren't other tax increases for today in the bill as well.)

Could you please expand upon this statement?

And your continuing to harp on an immaterial triviality is not even remotely surprising. Whether Franken was responsible for 5% or 10% or 1% of SNL does not change the fact that his bits were not funny and it isn't much of a reach to assume that what he wrote (that wasn't explicitly credited to him) wasn't funny either. Yes, Air America having come out of bankruptcy was news to me. It doesn't change the fact that it was in bankruptcy. I called it his Air America because he was the face of that organization and was involved in its formation. You find Franken funny, but are unwilling to provide any examples of something he's done that is funny. That's fine, and again, not terribly unexpected. It also is not nearly as entertaining as the Sabres' game, so I am probably done w/ this discussion. Spater.

The exact percentage of skits written by Franken is immaterial. The point, which you so deftly missed once again, was that it is doubtful that Franken is responsible for many of the good skits that don't include him; as the vast majority of skits he was in were not funny. But perhaps you can retell me how the writers do collaborate w/ each other once again; which is a pointless point as we both agree that they work together. Thus my statement earlier "And I am certain that they worked w/ other members of the crew as well." Perhaps you should do your research. They filed for bankruptcy back in '06 and were bought in '07. So HIS Air America WAS bankrupt. It's somebody elses now. And, it's not surprising that you'd try to extrapolate your final comment out of my original comments.

We may have different definitions of "journeymen" but both Meadows and Hammond strike me as being journeymen. (It isn't a bust on either, as I find both very funny within the SNL format; but I'd be very surprised to see either headlining a (good) movie or broadway show in the future.) My evaluation of Franken's writing talents may be flawed. Please provide me a better evaluation metric for his talent/ lack thereof. All I know is, the skits he ends up in; the movie roles I've seen him in, and the radio talk he's spoken have been poor IMHO. I've asked the steel dildo to provide the same, but my guess is he will come back w/ a retort that is far less eloquent and informative than your response will be. (Basically, I think you may actually give me something to reevaluate my opinion; whether you can or can't, I won't be wasting my time reading your response.) I'm not certain how relevant his books being best sellers is. Jackie Collins and Tom Clancy have had at least twice that many. That doesn't mean that Collins books are good, or that Clancy's are bad (or vice versa depending on perspective), it only means they caught on w/ the right PR people to promote what their books were about. Couldn't Franken's Ivy League ties and ability to shamelessly selfpromote have had something to do w/ his book sales?

Look dildo (Steely Dan, whatever), I did not say that one writer works on a sketch and that is it. Had you ever paid attention to the reruns of the old SNL, you would realize that Franken and Davis were a writing team. And I am certain that they worked w/ other members of the crew as well. Saying that 5% of the writing is his, on a whole, is probably very accurate. You have heard of this new concept called an "average", correct? The way an average works is, when you have, say 24 shows w/ 20 writers submitting material to the show w/ 16 skits per show, on average each writer supplies ~20 skits per season. Considering Al was on the screen at least 10 times / season (and probably more like 20) it is safe to assume that he supplied a lot of his own material. And the vast majority of that material wasn't funny. Again, if you disagree, please point out what WAS funny. The fact that you continue to bash me for saying his skits were unfunny w/out providing any evidence that anything WAS funny is telling as I have pointed out specific instances that were not funny. The reason his comedy is relevant to his politics is that he is basing his entire political career off of his comedy/ media career. His Air America is bankrupt. I doubt he was basing his campaign on that leg. The only other things he has is his TV/movie writing/acting and his books. Please explain to me what his comedy DOESN'T have to do w/ his politics? If his entire background is his comedy, isn't that what he's bringing to the table as a Senator? What else does he bring? How is any of that, especially considering the radio show went under, anything but self-promoting?

And Tim Meadows was on that show for 10+ years and Darryl Hammond has probably been around that long as well. A long tenure actually can imply hitting a journeyman status, where a person was good enough to get in, but not move on. (And part of being good enough to get in sometimes is going to the right school, etc. My opinion of Franken is that he was at the right Ivy League school at the right time and kissed the right butt to get in. The guy NEVER made it on his own, provided Governer Ventura's subjects don't throw this one to him.) As I wrote earlier, please tell me what he's done that was funny. I didn't find his Franken and Davis skits funny (although some of Davis' lines were funny; if Al wrote them, I'll give him credit for that), nor did I find his WU commentary funny. Stuart Smiley was PAINFULLY unfunny. Al, as a typical politician, has always appeared to be about himself. Considering he has never DONE anything tangible (other than self promote), I truly hope he does not end up in the "exclusive club". If he HAS done something other than self-promote under the radar, please let me know. I've seen no evidence of it.

You really think he'll actually sponsor bills? He might. But I would not be surprised to see him be a loud-mouthed follower like Kerry.

How many writers did they have on staff when he was there? 20 or so? They've been pretty consistent in that regard to having a large contingent of writers. If they have 20 writers, and each produces about the same amount of material, then each writer is responsible for ~5% of the shows that make it to the air. Considering every skit Al was in sucked, (if you disagree w/ this assessment, please point out what you think he was in that DIDN'T suck, I've already provided several examples of what DID suck) it isn't hard to extrapolate that his writing wasn't responsible for the funny bits that made it to air. And what you are neglecting to acknowledge by pointing out my comment that "some" of the best writing occurred while Al was on staff, is that a lot of good writing occurred while he wasn't on staff. Get it?

Flowers was Butler, but most of the rest of what you state is spot on.

Except that I actually saw (far too many of) his skits back in the late '70's and early '80's and when he came back on the show w/ the Stuart Smiley era crud. Actually, he wasn't funny in 'Trading Places' either. His Air America rants bordered on Randi Rhodes venomous as well. So, how exactly does your inane post show how I think? If anything, it seems to indicate, once again, how you don't appear to.

Why does the fact that you post you don't know his stuff but yet like it not surprise me?

Yeah, because his "the '70's were the 'Me decade', what will the '80's be? They'll be the AL FRANKEN DECADE" was friggin' hilarious. You are correct, some of the best SNL material occurred when he was on the payroll there. Considering the schlock that he put out as an actor, (Franken & Davis skits, Stuart Smiley, his Weekend Update commentary) I really doubt much of the good stuff was his. Or maybe he just gave the good stuff to other actors, and in his infinite humility decided to keep the cruddy stuff for himself.

Due to the roads being an absolute disaster currently, I have no intention of making the typically 1:30 drive. I've heard the storm is easing in Buffalo, so if I was starting from near Buffalo, I'd be going. I have a pair of seats in the 300's inside the blue line on the Sabres' bench side. For a donation of $40 to this site, I will have them left at will call. (Face value for the pair is $152.) Send me a PM if interested. (Yes, the offer is legit, and no, Scott did not put me up to it. Sorry for the short notice, but I just got back a few minutes ago.)

Actually, Caroline was on MtP right before Pelosi was. Watching the 1st interview, I commented to my wife that this was an example of why I missed Russert so much. Brokaw would ask her a tough question, allow her to sidestep it, and then move on to his next question. There was never a single probing followup Q nor a redirect to actually answer the original question. And then Pelosi came on, and Brokaw still didn't ask a probing followup question. But this time he didn't need to, Pelosi would mangle the 1st one w/out any need for followup. She had some gems such as the Catholic Church doesn't have a position on when life begins and natural gas isn't a fossil fuel. (And she will STILL be 2 heartbeats away from the Presidency. THAT is scary.) CKS is definitely smarter than the average bear from her clan. That is about the only thing I can come up w/ as a positive if she is annointed Senator. I'd actually prefer to see Slaughter get the nod, but she came out today endorsing Caroline. So once again Upstate NY will get an even weaker voice.

He is making a "chicken wing soup". Clearly he doesn't want properly cooked wings. As you said, to each his own.

Writing comprehension a little low today Deb?

Can't speak for anyone else, but it's not just that they are losing or how they are losing; it's the way this whole season shaped up. Heading into the season, I was kind of down because I didn't think they had a team good enough to take advantage of a REALLY easy schedule. That 4-0 start w/ something we haven't seen in what seems like forever (4th quarter come from behind wins, yeah those were against bad teams, but they were wins that they should have been able to build on) and what appeared at the time as wins against quality opponents (a Seattle team albeit w/ limited WR's and the Jags at home), made me start to believe they actually were good enough to take advantage of the schedule. After the 4-0 start, I expected at least 1 loss in the next 2, quite likely 2 L's, so the win against a weary and hard luck SD team also indicated the team might actually take advantage of the schedule. Then the 1st Dolfelon debacle takes place. How do you keep going to an injured McGee covering Ginn all game long? Even if you don't think McKelvin can cover him, or double teaming him, or whatever will work, you have to at least try something else as Terrance at 80% was not good enough to get it done. Against Cleveland, you finally get Trent to look good and then you decide being in 50 yard field goal range is close enough in freezing weather against the wind. Then the stinker against the 9ers. Well at least we get the Fish on a 22 degree high wind day. Or maybe not. It's not so much that they're ~500 again. It's that they had the perfect storm of reasonable schedule and great start that actually looked like they might not go 0-for-the-millenium. (I guess they still have 991 left to get off the schnide.)

What was the deal w/ JP looking over his right shoulder after finishing every sentence for the 1st half of the PC?

For me, the issue isn't so much that she's a novice or very liberal or a Kennedy (she actually comes across far more intellegently in interviews than most of the clan). The issue is more that while she will be learning the job, she will also be (hopefully) trying to get up to speed on upstate issues while the financial sector meltdown (centered on downstate) will consume an inordinate amount of her time and energy as she tries to get up to speed on that. At a time when WNY's limited influence in DC wanes ever further, I don't see her appointment helping in that matter. I think it would be very good if Higgins were put into that position, but I don't see it happening. Although I'd probably never vote for her as Senator, given the fact that the appointee will be a liberal democrat, I'd probably like to see Slaughter get nominated for the slot. Again, given the constraints of who will be nominated for what, if Caroline were given a position in the Federal government, I'd prefer to see her heading Education.

OK, they have the right to say anything, they simply should have the good taste not to use that right.