Taro T

IF the Bills get into the playoffs they will have a home game as the only way they get in is as the East Division winner. They'd probably have to host either Cincy or Jacksonville. On the outside chance they surpassed that hurdle, that is when the hurting begins. They most likely would have to go to Indy, and I don't see any way the Bills stay within 2 touchdowns of the Colts. It's all moot anyway, as the Patriots need to play very poorly over the last 6 weeks (w/ 2 games against the Jets and 1 against Miami) and the Bills at a minimum need to go 4-2, and probably 5-1 or 6-0 due to the Pats' remaining schedule.

I know some players in Europe have died from getting hit directly on the heart, haven't heard of any having it happen in NA, but if I'm not mistaken Chris Pronger collapsed a few years back after getting hit with a slap shot directly over his heart. As others have stated, thank God that Fischer appears to be ok.

PLEASE don't make me have to argue for the Keynesians! I don't follow your argument that revenues need to increase as a %age of national income in order to have truly increased. If that were the case, the only way to ever maximize revenues to the gov't's coffers would be to have a 100% tax. By lowering the tax rate, you increase revenues, but by definition have lowered the percentage of the GDP that the revenues make up. (Obviously, there is some tax rate where overall revenues will decrease, but my guess is that we are still comfortably on the high side of the inflection point.) As you admit, the economy picked up after the tax cuts, (I realize you believe that would have occured with or without the tax cuts) had spending been anywhere close to where it was prior to 2001, then the percentage of GDP shown as expenditures would at a minimum remain constant; it actually SHOULD decrease much as the revenues as a %age decreased. The fact that it grew by more than a full %age point indicates that spigot got opened a heck of a lot more than the tax cut would have accounted for. Had expenditures remained constant, or even close to constant, the deficit would have been a lot lower. I will not state that all of the increased spending was necessarily bad, as much of the military budget increases were necessary due to the US being at war. A certain amount of the discretionary spending was also necessary to get out of the brief recession. There was, however, a lot of unnecessary spending and that definitely ballooned the deficit. I agree with you 100% that the true deficits are worse than they look due to the SS "surplus". I wish the politicians were forced to keep them separate from the rest of the gov't's funds so people would see just how bad Congress is at staying in a budget.

The tax cuts did NOT increase the deficit. They led to increased government revenues. The deficit increased because spending increased more than the increase in revenues. Had the tax cuts not been enacted, the deficits would have increased even more as revenues would have been lower, assuming as you do that all else remains constant - i.e. that the increase in spending would have occured regardless of revenue. Had spending remained constant, the tax cuts would have REDUCED the deficit as they increased revenues. Deficit = Spending - Revenue when Spending > Revenue. If spending < revenue, you get a surplus. By the way, the '90's "surpluses" were not true surpluses as they were created using SS money that has been earmarked for future outlays.

As to your 1st point, my guess is that that is an issue that was argued here long before I started posting on this board, namely, was the US led invasion of Iraq a dispute between the US and Iraq or was it an enforcement of the 18 or so SC resolutions that Iraq was violating. My opinion is that it was the latter and I assume from your other posts that your view is it was the former. My guess is that one or both of us will have carpal-tunnel before we reach an agreement and as you mention, the point is moot. I agree with your other point about what the current concern should be. I tend to agree generally with BiB's and SnR's posts regarding Iraq, Mickey's protests that nothing specific is being stated at any level notwithstanding.

Hopefully at least 14 of them were against the annoying blonde in the beige suit sitting behind him who seemed to be the official Democrat applause starter. Hopefully the last hit was against whoever was the Republican applause starter. How in the world can these people be so fat when they have to jump out of their seats every 20 seconds to lead the wave throughout the chamber?

Yeah, but then, when it appeared the thread would drop below the toilet level, the Tidy Bowl man floated in on what was left of the Ella Fitzgerald to save the day.

Campy, I went back through the UN Charter again and "upon further review" do not believe that the US has an obligation to absolutely follow any "recommendations" of the GA. Article 2, Principle 5 states: The only place where "actions" are referred to is in dealing with issues before the Security Council (Articles 25, 36-42). Since the "recommendations" of the GA are NOT actions I do not see where under KRC's hypothetical "Chinese guns are now illegal" would be enforceable against the US (or any other member state for that matter). I come to the conclusion that GA recommendations are not actions because the SC can make recommendations and/or take actions. Actions and recommendations are specifically referred to separately for the SC. Because the US has it's veto on the SC, I don't see much possibility of overly ambitious busybodies being able to jerk the US around too much, but the possibility definitely is there. As a side note, because the SC CAN essentially declare war or impose significant economic sanctions on whomever it wants, provided it gets 9 votes and no vetos, I would never want the US to unilaterally withdraw from the UN. I see far too real a possibility that in the future some combination of the French, Chinese, and Russians would find some reason to declare war or sanctions on the US and drag the rest of the world with them. Also, it appears that the UN Charter was amended on at least 3 occasions. Do you by any chance have any information regarding whether the US Senate re-ratified the Charter after any / all of the amendments? I have no information regarding that and was curious.

That should teach her to go sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.

No, it wasn't Red Foxx, it was Red Green. The only reason he won the fight was due to the extra roll of duct tape he had hidden in each of his gloves. If Mr. T hadn't been there protecting him, there'd have been heck to pay.

I understand that the plaintiffs were arguing that they had exclusive rights in regards their children's education and I agree that they are probably wrong IMHO about that. I do not have a problem with the 1st part of the ruling, but do have a problem with the next sentence (the one that starts "we also hold"). The wording is such that parents have NO ... RIGHT, not no exclusive right, but no right. I am reading that as stating that if you enroll your child in public school, then no matter what the teachers, or in this case "volunteers", want to expose your children to, you just have to send the kid to class and hope that you can undo whatever damage it causes. I agree with you that prior to the ruling everyone agreed the parents had rights. I am not certain that that is the case after the ruling due to the wording.

Thank you for the clarification of your post. I now see why you feel all the UN resolutions / actions are binding on US law. I do not interpret Article 2 as broadly as you do, but will admit I may be misinterpreting it. (I doubt it, but it definitely is possible.) As for the Sabres, for some reason the game wasn't on DirecTV CI in Rochester last night so I didn't get a chance to watch it. I only knew they were winning big and then knew that they had won. Fortunately didn't get any of the gory details.

I'm a beer drinker myself, so most of these mixed drinks are emetics in my opinion. I'd probably actually consider it a moron's martini, but I think we're getting down to semantics.

Well considering legislators are actually elected and the "volunteer" that came up with this mess wasn't in any way, shape, or form I think that it is different. My concern, and why I claim the Court is activist is that it stated, in my reading of it, that parents now have no right to control or oversee what a teacher or "educator" wants to present to their children. Considering the fact that this survey had to have "parental approval" in the form of a misleading consent form, I think that even this school board and the "volunteer" running the program believed that parents have some rights regarding their children's educations. If my reading of the decision is correct, and parents do not have that right according to the 9th/8th court, I have a big problem with that, as it is almost impossible to get rid of a poor teacher with tenure in many school districts. If I am mistaken in what the Court actually decreed, then cool. But every time I read the decision, I keep coming back to the same place, that is that parents were just denied one more opportunity to keep "education" within the framework they are comfortable with. (By the way, I don't see this as a clearly right wing loss; I can definitely see "liberal" parents in Kansas or other more conservative regions thinking that they took it up the back side as well.)

1 oz gin 2 tsp sweet vermouth, dry vermouth, & orange juice several drops curacao Combine w/ ice, shake well Strain, add ice.

Well, I'll respect your opinion on this, but I just can't keep from seeing it from the flip side that these words in this ruling are actually stating that "educators" don't need to take the views of the parents into consideration before letting loose with any other program that is this moronic. I am still taking out of this ruling that the district doesn't even need to point out to the parents beforehand that they want to do something this poorly thought out. I hope that I am just reading it wrong.

Please point out to me where in the UN Charter it says anything about member nations being bound by General Assembly resolutions. As near as I can tell, and I admit I may be missing something, the General Assembly makes RECOMMENDATIONS and reports. I saw nothing binding in any of it. The Security Council is a different matter, but we have a veto on that one, so I'm not too worried about anything biting our butt from there. And you can go blank yourself with the "you didn't read the Constitution" crud. I have read the Constitution on several occasions and even bothered to relook at it before posting to you. My issue isn't with reading the bloody thing. My issue is that I don't see where any "resolutions" have been ratified by the Senate as PER THE CONSTITIUTION. I ASKED for CLARIFICATION of YOUR STATEMENTS and you suggested I go reread the Constitution, thus the point about being "snippy". The Charter is a treaty, you are correct. However my point was that the Senate has to ratify any treaties and the way you have been describing things, it would imply that you think once a treaty has been signed any and all modifications are necessarily binding on the US. I do not come away with that impression. That definitely is not the case with "normal" treaties. IF the UN Charter IS a different beast, please point me to the direct reference as I DON'T SEE IT THERE.

Campy, I see your point, but disagree with you about UN resolutions being "treaties" that the US is bound to. Unless the Senate RATIFIES a treaty it is NOT the "law of the land". (The Kyoto treaty that Clinton signed being a prime example.) I don't understand how the US becoming a member nation more than half a century ago automatically forces the US to follow something that was added in the interim. The US is party to GATT, but if/when that gets revised, it won't be binding on the US until the Senate ratifies the revisions. I don't see how this is any different. PS Thanks for the snippy answer about reading the Constitution.

Apologies about the caps, wasn't trying to "scream" at you, but my browser sometimes has issues with getting things like "bolding text" to work. I called it a "sexuality survey" because I felt it was very disingenious of the lady who sent the letter out to ignore that several rather "mature" questions, which IMHO are totally inappropriate for 6 and 8 year olds, would be included. Let's be honest about it, she had to have known that if she told the parents that those questions would be in the survey that most of them would have denied permission. I do not come to the same conclusion reading the Court's opinion that you do about notifications. It says parents don't have the right to override decisions about THEIR children, I interpret this to mean their OWN children. You seem to view it as more individual parents don't have the right to alter the curriculum for all children. On that you and I would both agree. I do though see this as becoming a precedent for something far more substantial / sinister (IMHO), that being that parents now no longer have the option to keep their children out of class if something is being taught that the parents object to or to keep the children from participating in activities that the parents don't want them involved in. You keep bringing up the word "exclusive", if that had been in the sentence in question, I would tend to agree with you that this is not a significant issue. It wasn't included in the Court's opinion, and I find it hard to believe that they just "accidentally" worded the sentence in a way that would provide very expansive powers to "educators". If this does in fact become such a precedent, this is a VERY bad thing. If they stated in their opinion that in this one particular instance the plaintiff's didn't have a case for the reasons you have cited, I would agree with you that the Court exhibited judicial restraint. It's funny, because you see this as being a case of judicial restraint and I (and I will admit immediately that I am not a lawyer) see it instead as an opening for intense judicial activism. Yes, if a school board or renegade teacher does pull a stunt like this in the future, the populace can, at the next board election, try to get the board kicked out. But what about the tenured teacher, can the parents get her booted now that they apparently don't have the right to keep their kindergardeners out of today's lesson on proper condom usage? Again, you and I are taking different meanings from the sentence in question. If you could be so kind, please help me understand how I am reading that sentence incorrectly, because if I could get over to your view of the ruling I would be much more comfortable with it.

Nice post. I agree with all of it except the "when it will be part". If the future could be seen with precision, then I would not have a problem with saying everything will be wonderful or FUBAR'd on x date. Unfortunately, none of us know what the future holds, and cannot say y will happen on z date. I do not have a problem though with the administration providing a listing of individual goals that are to be accomplished and then allowing the American people to decide on their own whether progress towards the goals are being made at a satisfactory pace. I believe a lot of those goals have been put out there, but perhaps more specificity would help.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 (November 10, 1975) "THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ... DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." Looks pretty cut and dried to me. If all UN resolutions are automatically US law, I guess that one is as well. I don't believe that UN resolutions automatically become US law as parts of binding treaties because that would render ANY US laws subject to modification via UN resolutions. I don't see where today's Senate can be forced to ratify / abide by a UN resolution today because the US joined the UN over 50 years ago. Maybe you could provide some clarification on what you mean by this, because I am not following you one bit on this one.

1st off, could you please post a link to the UN resolution that stated the US was not authorized to invade Iraq? Or is the lack of a resolution stating explicitly "the US may invade Iraq on xxx date at yyy time to ensure compliance with resolutions that Iraq is currently violating" the same as a resolution stating "the US may not enforce Iraq's compliance with our other violated resolutions"? As near as I could tell, the US was actually enforcing the 18 or so resolutions that Iraq was violating. You lost me there with the part about UN resolutions becoming a part of federal law. Is it really true that federal law says "Zionism is racism"? When did the Senate ratify that one? You also lost me with the US is violating Geneva Conventions. As far as I know, any Iraqi soldier that was captured by the US led forces was provided with all rights and priviledges engendered under the Geneva Conventions. I don't believe there are currently any "terrorist" signatories to the said Geneva Conventions.

Mickey, what part of that consent form indicated in any way whatsoever that 1st graders were going to receive a sexuality survey? I certainly wouldn't have assumed that because the form stated "answering questions may make my child feel uncomfortable" that the 1st graders (heck, the 3rd or 5th graders either) would be asked questions of a rather "adult" sexual nature. Would you have interpreted the consent form that way? I also take extreme exception to the Court's ruling stating "we also hold that the PARENTS HAVE NO due process or privacy RIGHT TO OVERRIDE THE DETERMINATIONS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS TO THE INFORMATION TO WHICH THEIR CHILDREN WILL BE EXPOSED WHILE ENROLLED AS STUDENTS." I am surprised that you do not have an issue with this. As CTM mentioned, that does seem to render the whole idea of parental consent forms as being superfluous, as it does appear that parents cannot grant nor withhold consent. The other thing I thought was interesting in this whole matter is that the lady who administered these questionaires was a "volunteer". The friggin' school board is letting random people come in and ask some really inappropriate questions, but since it was "rationally relagated to a state purpose" I guess that it is ok. I will be shocked if any members of that imbecilic school board get reelected. I am not shocked that the 9th Court thinks this is ok. It actually seems par for the course.

No data on what happened to the old morning guys, as they were too annoying to listen to more than 1-2 times / quarter. Agree that Riter can be less than stellar, but he is much better than the pair that precedes him.

It seemed back in the late '70's and early '80's that he was the ultimate bandwagon jumper. If they won a game they were playoff bound and if they lost one they were the worst team in the world. The effect was even more magnified for Fergy. I never thought too much of Felser when growing up but didn't mind listening to him when he'd be on Howard's show on WNSA in the afternoons.