Taro T

Oh, I don't disagree at all that there are different levels of justice for guys like Ovie and Cyndie, and no I don't think that is right. But, with mere mortal stars/players, I think that the likelihood that the NHLPA argued that the Drury hit was technically legal and the case could not be made that the Kaberle hit was technically legal was the difference. I also am interested in hearing / reading the TO media's take on these hits because I think the Janssen hit was less dirty than the one that Farcy tried to throw on Jochen last year. They didn't seem to see anything wrong with a guy skating past the guy that hit him cleanly to try to throw an elbow at a smaller player's head but miss and take out his knee. (The foot's on the other hand now.)

The puck was in the corner when Drury got creamed. Had Colaiacovo not touched the puck, for whatever reason, Kaberle would have been the player "in possession" of the puck and when Jannsen hit Kaberle he'd have been hitting the player "in possession" of the puck. Had Stafford tipped Drury's shot, then he'd have been the player in possession and Neil's hit would have been interference as Janssen's hit was (although there was no call at the time). Janssen didn't get suspended because of Kaberle hitting the boards, he got suspended because the hit was "late". Colaiacovo possessing the puck being what made this one late and Drury "possessing" the puck apparently being what kept the other hit from being "late". Both hits were shoulders to the jaw after the puck was already on the other side of the ice. Had Kaberle not taken a shoulder to the head he most likely wouldn't have spun head first into the boards. Had Drury not taken a shoulder to the head he most likely wouldn't have face planted into the ice.

He should have been suspended. I'm glad to see the league followed through. I also hope the league addresses high shots to the head (as opposed to the Schaefer hit on Connolly) as they are pretty much intentional attempts to injure the opponent. The only significant difference that I see between the Kaberle and Drury hits is that the puck ended up on somebody else's stick before Kaberle was hit. The hit was a fraction later than the one on Drury, but had the puck not gone to Colaiacovo would have been technically legal (and still dirty) like the other hit.

I've got Zubrus and Roy swapped because Roy worked very well with Drury in the playoffs last year, Zubrus appears to be a bit better on faceoffs than Derek, and part of the reason the Sabres pulled the trigger on the deal was the endorsement from Max. I'd expect they'd give the 2 former Soviets a chance to play together. I also went w/ Paille and Stafford as L&R wings respectively on 4th line because that is their natural positions.

Considering the lines could look something like this (if all are healthy) Hecht - Briere - Pominville Roy - Drury - Kotalik Vanek - Zubrus - Afinogenov Paille (Paetsch) - Connolly - Mair (Stafford) with Tallinder - Lydman Spacek - Campbell Kalinen - Numminen and MacArthur ready to be called up if necessary, I am pretty happy with the way this team looks. And Lindy isn't completely resigned to losing Gaustad for the entire playoffs; I think he's HOPING for a mid-May return. I'd love to throw him into the mix, that is a really strong lineup.

When you look at the trades overall they were Marty and Novotny for Zubrus, Conklin, and cap space (aka Connolly); and the other trades amounted to a 4th and a 5th for 2 depth defensemen (#8 and 9 on depth chart; considering the Sabres went to #10 in the playoffs last year and #8 this morning was an AHL rookie, they were pieces this team needs). The draft pick exchange could be as little as the Sabres dropping 1 slot, in a worst case it will be dropping about 5 slots. The Sabres didn't "fleece" the Caps, but they did make fair trades overall, improved the team, and didn't mortgage the future. All in all, a pretty good day.

But going back to your original point, which is what I questioned, that is relevant to the original question. If it is 0, or more realistically a VERY small percentage (which, lacking the census data on their scholarship recipients, I will assume for sake of argument; if you have data contradicting this assumption I will gladly include it in the evaluation), then their scholarships (at least those given to students attending non-HBCU's) would appear to be open to the general public and excluding people based upon their race. This meets your definition of racist/sexist and as such is apparently wrong.

I have not commented at all on whether what the kids at FSU are doing is racist or not. You seem to have made some assumptions, but whatever. The UNCF bills itself as a "minority higher education assistance organization ... and has distributed more funds to help minorities attend school" than anyone but the government. I had not been aware of UNCF awarding scholarships to persons not of African descent. According to their website they do, but it would be interesting to know whether any of the individual scholarships awarded do have racial criteria. I would expect that some do as they appear to be started by individual/private donors, but don't know that. If so, it would appear that they are racists by your definition. It would also be interesting to see how small the percentage of non-African descended students that are awarded scholarships are.

So the UNCF isn't open to the general public but this other one is? It would appear that I am not as familiar with the UNCF as I thought. How is the UNCF NOT open to the general public (excepting that the recipients need to be Negroes to qualify)?

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Yeah, they cut that part out of the rest of that episode on Discovery. Too bad, that was pretty funny.

I think he reads them, comprehension appears to be the issue.

Thanks for the link. I also checked Amazon. It looks like most of the music will be original but not all of it. For $25, I'll take a chance on it.

Grant, Thanks for the heads up. I followed the link but it didn't state whether they will have the original versions of the shows or the Nick-at-nighted versions (albeit full length). Do you know whether they are the "real thing" or the evil ones? If they are the real ones that is great news.

Are we still talking about CC or has this discussion morphed over to former NYS AG Elliot Spitzer?

Didn't check the link, but they "aired" one in the States back ~December when they were all recording their meals and when they let one rip. (Might be the same one.) They had Adam in a tub catching his. I think the point was to see if someone could make the air in their room so toxic that the person would die. I'm pretty sure that one was busted.

I don't know just how great Marty's trade value is. It appears that it wasn't much more than a 2nd round pick last year or he'd have probably been the one moved rather than Mika. (Either that, or Darcy tried to squeeze Edmonton a little too hard for Marty and ended up with no deal when Minny cut Rolosen loose.) He was an RFA this off-season. Considering he is now a rental player, I don't think he'd bring back much in a trade; definitely not as much as most of us fans would like to see for him. I've seen in several places that the Sabres would like to make a run at Gary Roberts, but don't know if that is based on anything real or meerly speculation. Marty wouldn't land him from the Panthers as a team that won't make the playoffs this year won't trade for a rental goalie. Tampa could be interested in him, as you mention, but I don't know what they would offer for him that would upgrade the Sabres current roster; especially considering the Sabres can't accept salary. If it would make the Sabres better, I wouldn't mind seeing Marty moved; I'm just having a hard time coming up with a deal that someone will bite on.

How could Obama running for President be anything BUT a "silly question" in '04? He hadn't held national office nor been a Governor (either of which would appear to be a prerequisite to running a legitimate Presidential campaign), it could have been argued quite legitimately back then that he would not have the experience after only 2 years in the US Senate to begin a legitimate Presidential campaign. And even though he appears a legitimate candidate now, he is still very far from the Democratic nomination, much less the office itself, and I would be very surprised if his lack of experience isn't a major obstacle for him to overcome in the current election cycle. There are a lot of things I might like to get indignant over Dems actions and views; I am having a hard time seeing how this should be one of them.

HBD.

In your example, the actions of the licensee still wouldn't fall under 1st amendment protections. It could fall under some civil rights statute, although I don't know what one, as "Bills fans" are not, ttbomk, a protected class, although I think we should be.

Kelly, w/ all due respect, McCain would have been, or more accurately is, wrong if he stated that. The 1st Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS (i.e. the government) cannot abridge the rights of free speech. There is nothing in it that says individuals (or corporations) can't limit what is said (and allowed to be said through their own property). 1st amendment: If Scott wanted to ban you, or I, or any other poster; he would be well within his rights. Clear Channel is no different (although it is a heck of a lot bigger). People also could have protested CC's decision if they so desired and provided they weren't threatening anyone or blowing anything up would have been within their rights.

Classic.

While Taxi and WKRP are classics that did air in the '80's, I consider them '70's TV shows. The best of the '80's have to include: Cheers Police Squad Hill Street Blues St. Elsewhere Newhart Buffalo Bill (Geena Davis was hot prior to hanging with Susan Sarandon) Family Ties and Cosby get honorable mentions.

Heck, I thought this would be a post about Anna Nicole. Gee, the "international community" needs to do much more to help? No kidding. Considering most of the world is doing absolutely nothing (think France) or actively supporting groups promoting the "insurgents" (think Syria), that isn't really a newsworthy thought. I don't really feel that bad for Syria having to deal with refugees when they are creating a large portion of the problem. (I DO however feel bad for the refugees.)

I really liked the bumper stickers in Louisiana when Edwards was running against Duke in '91. "Vote for the crook. It's important." Talk about a no win situation.