Peevo

http://artvoice.com/issues/v9n16/music_nominees Sorry folks, and to any poster who may be in these bands, but this list is atrocious. I mean, really, really bad. And no, I'm not complaining because my band didn't make the list, I'm complaining because no act with members above the age of 50 deserve to make any local rock list. Where is The Reign of Kindo? (myspace.com/thereignofkindo) One of the most talented, original and adept bands out there right now? 4 part vocal harmony, flawless musicianship, and hard working guys that do everything right. The Found? Folky, layered vocal harmony amid bombastic percussion and and a mean drummer with a huge bass drum? What more do you want? myspace.com/thefoundsound How about Son of the Sun? if you like chill, introspective and mellow songwriting, here's your place. Zak's voice has never been better, and their new album will destroy all cynics. myspace.com/sonofthesunmusic For heavier bands, how about Rust Belt Lights? Honest, fast, and well executed local punk rock. I'm sorry, but save for Chae Hawk, Babik and Bloodthirsty Vegans, there really is no talent on this list. I thought Artvoice was the sound of the youth? I think the average age of the Rock band category is 75. Sorry dudes, but you have to better than that. Also, no band with an exclamation point in their name, while using Line 6 modeling amps deserves to be on any best of list. Give me a real amp with real tubes and real overdrive.

Really liked the soundbyte from Gailey "I don't care about people's feelings, I care about scoring points."

Yeah, I use marijuana for that purpose. But I think you'd be lying if you suggested that Americans and people in the developed world at large don't self-medicate to dull stress in SOME way or another. It's actually pretty simple. Pick your vice people: sex, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, gambling (tremendously destructive for families and individual lives, just ask my sports betting addict friend). Or how about "safe" vices? Fast food-biochemically produces the same endorphins in your brain and is tremendously destructive and offers no nutritional value. Should that be restricted for public health purposes? How about pop? I love Pepsi, but it's super bad for you. It can lead to obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, other health defects. All of the above in some way or another are tremendously bad for you in high doses. The biggest theme of this conversation that gets oft-overlooked is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. No one should tell you that you can't do bad things to your body (pregnant women notwithstanding). It's my body, I'll poison it if i choose. Cigarettes tell you that they're dangerous right on the box, what more do you need? Don't patronize consenting adults. Conservatives rail about personal autonomy all day. What more than your own body? Any TRUE conservative would be a harbinger of any restrictions on self-regarding acts. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, any of them.

Wasn't Levi Brown the girl that sued in Brown v Board in 1954?

You missed my point. Of course murder is illegal. It's the conscious taking of one's life. Who am I to say that I can determine when someone else's life ends? That's why its wrong. Any legislation that governs INDIVIDUAL behavior, and certainly vices, serves no public benefit and simply drains tax revenue and resources. Like I said, how many people on this board bet on football games every week, or bet in their college basketball pools? This is illegal in New York State. People do it everyday. People illicit prostitution, hard drugs, gambling, smoking, any of these pleasure giving acts, REGARDLESS of legality, still happen daily. Prohibition failed, did it not? The 18th amendment is the only amendment to have been negated by another amendment. Think about that. The temperance movement "succeeded" when prohibition became the law of the land. People still drank, and major organized crime networks developed to supply that demand. If anything, illicit trades are governed by pure market economics. Black markets, but markets nonetheless. As I said, and you obviously didn't read it, NO ONE should have the authority to tell you what do you with your body, good or bad. If I go and eat lunch at McDonald's, because fast food is unhealthy does that mean I need a lecture on what I'm doing to my body? NO! The nutrition facts are RIGHT ON THE BAG. Any reasonable adult can decide for themselves what to put, or not to put, in their own bodies. It's called libertarianism. Any true conservative should agree with the policy. If I buy cigarettes, same thing. I paid the excise taxes, and furthermore, it says RIGHT ON THE BOX that they're bad for you. I don't need to be patronized for my decisions that negatively affect no one but myself.

It's also important to understand that the link between mental health problems and heavy marijuana use is overstated. NORML.org claims that one must be medically predisposed to mental health issues, like bipolar disorder, before even using the drug, to have THC have any effect on it. Regulatory behavior legislation never works, it will never work, and continues to be proven ineffective time and again. It's against the law to gamble on sports, people do it everyday. Speeding, smoking in public places (the UB smoking ban is a complete joke) drinking and driving, prostitution. Pick your vice. All of these are against the law. People do them regardless. I love it how its the neoconservatives that get off on their moral higher ground. If anything, a true conservative would be vehemently opposed to any legislation that governs personal human autonomy. Smoking is bad for you, but no governing agency should tell you can't do bad things to your body.

I agree with the plurality of posters on this board. I smoke a lot. I'm also an A student, work full time, volunteer my time at our school's radio station, and am involved in other projects. While I admit the perception and attitudes about a marijuana user are unfortunate, they exist. We shouldn't judge people based on appearances, but we do. You have to play the game to get in the game. So, while I think its stupid that they judge people on using a product that I think no one would argue provides any tactical advantage, I would think its reasonable to suggest that a NFL prospect would know that scouts will frown on knowledge of its usage and said prospects should act accordingly. What's interesting is vice usage of other prospects DOESN'T go public. Do they include tobacco and alcohol in these tests? Legal vices, sure, but its just as, if not more than, damaging as weed. I don't think I'd want a chain smoker to be on my team, wouldn't that seriously affect his capabilities as an NFL athlete?

I think the whole analysis is quite flawed unless you include the most important stat of all: wins. per pro-football-reference.com. for some reason, NFL.com doesn't have win/loss record. I don't know why. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxs...cgi?qb=EdwaTr01 14-16 career record. That's simply not good enough. Especially considering in 2009 the defense kept his team in a position to win the game in almost every Sunday. I would exclude the first Miami game. But still. You can show me stats till I'm blue in the face. He is NOT a winner. In the words of Mike Singletary, "I want winners. Can't play wit 'em, can't coach wit 'em. Can't doooo it."

I don't know why King gets such a bad rap on this board. That first page is tremendously well written. He makes a great point. A first round QB pick is a much bigger crapshoot than a flyer for an aged but proven NFL QB. "What would you rather have, a four- or five-year shot at a relatively sure thing in McNabb (with a +12 TD/INT ratio in each of his past four seasons), or a guy who makes you go to bed uneasy every night for the next two or three years because you just don't know how he'll pan out?" This, above all else, is the gamble. Can Bills brass take the heat for taking a risk with McNabb and sacrificing a future star QB? Because this is all unfairly graded in hindsight, what Nix and Co. have to do is assess whether hearing "why didn't we just draft "X" in 2010? over a proven starter in the NFL. And the end of the day, I just want a winner before I have prostate issues, gray hair, and regular colon screenings. Just sayin'.

"Merlin Olsen comes over, on occasion, it's stupid"-Ron Burgandy

Ryan Fitzpatrick earned a 49/50, how good of a NFL QB is he? One dog goes east, one dog goes west, so what?

Oh please. You're gonna seriously tell me that Terry Bradshaw had nothing to do with those 70's Superbowl Wins? What about Lynn Swann who was catching those throws? And sure, Big Ben did not have a great game in the 2005 Superbowl vs Seattle, but he played lights out against Arizona. He still had to stand in the pocket and make that great throw to the end zone to Holmes. Better catch, but still a great throw outside in really tight coverage. Give the guy some credit. He gets the crap beaten out of him, is consistently one the most sacked QB's in the league, and had a 500 yard game in 2009. When's the last time a Bills QB threw for more than 300 yards? Yes, I know that most of the time those stats are bloated because the team is throwing the whole time because they are behind, but good lord, give me a break. You don't win consistently in the NFL without a quality QB. Spare me the, "but Dilfer and Johnson won a Superbowl" takes. It's like talking about Constitutional Case Law. For every case that rule x becomes the norm, there's at least 2 cases to prove the opposite point. Having Dilfer in your back pocket has become the norm when talking about bad QB play. The Bills had ELITE defenses and ELITE special teams in the same year in the 2000's-see 03 and 04, did we make the playoffs?

It's hard to complete sentences in this league.

As a drummer, I have a love/hate relationship with regards to guitar solos. Raised on jazz, soloing as an art form is in my opinion more pertinent to that genre as a whole. Davis, Coltrane, et al told stories with their solos. Rock guitar soloing is just a totally different animal. That said, I think this conversation begins and ends with Billy Corgan's solo in Hummer.

Whatever brah don't take yourself so seriously. It's one comment about a millionaire athlete on a message board. I'm sure he's really upset about what "Peevo" said on the Stadium Wall. Class and perspective? Ok. Edwards graduated from Stanford with a Political Science degree. I'm gonna be graduating from UB with the same degree. I imagine his program is much more challenging than mine, and I can say, the School of Political Science is kicking my ass. So, good for him. He's definitely smart, good guy. All that. Still doesn't change the fact that he's a lousy QB that get hurts a lot, even before getting drafted by the Bills. And yes, if he's gonna start for this team next year he has a responsibility to face the media and the criticism along with it. It comes with the job. Better now?

Yes, but the difference here is that JP was STILL on the team when he was benched. Bledsoe was cut and then went out to the media with his thoughts. All I'm saying is, if this broken POS is gonna line up and take snaps for my team, he best be doing all he can to save face. I'm tired of this guy, but if management can't get anybody better, what other options do I have?

I know we're all joking, but the guy makes a legitimate point. Even JP Freaking Losman wasn't happy with his demotion and said as much to the media. He was terrible and never earned his job back, but at least there was a pulse there. When Bledsoe was cut, he was not happy about it, and rightfully so. Especially when there's now reports that he's probably gonna be the starting QB AGAIN this fall, it'd be important to get a hold of this guy and see where his head is at. He loses the starting role to Fitzpatrick and he's just ok with it? I don't get it. The guy is bad. But if he's our best option at QB he best be putting his best foot forward with the fans and the media. It certainly couldn't hurt to gain some positive press.

I can't wait till someone signs him for a cheap 1 year deal and the same dudes complaining about him will be the ones roasting the front office for standing pat.

Every driver has had to have some experience with a pedestrian simply not looking, or aware of the situation and you have to stop or adjust in order to avoid them. This happens to me on Elmwood seriously all the time. Look, I realize the village is a youth centered area with a decent amount of foot traffic, but the cars have the right of way too. Just freaking LOOK both ways sometimes. It really pisses me off. Even if something happens, and they walked in front of you, the law doesn't care, its still your fault. Same thing with bike riders. EVERY DAY there's some jerk swerving all over the road on his "fixie," "helping the environment" while I have to nervously follow behind him going 15 miles an hour, because there's simply not enough room to pass. And now you see blogs and news articles about "biker's rights." Last time I checked, a bicycle is a vehicle subject to traffic laws in NYS. The only scenarios I'm aware of where the pedestrian can be found legally liable or at fault is in major metropolitan areas, NYC, Boston, D.C., etc. But even in these cases the burden of proof remains with the driver. There are plenty of examples of this, but you still can't get behind the wheel when you've had too many. You simply cannot make that decision. It's not worth it. Say what you want about Vick, but he served the full term of his federal prison sentence. 2 and a half years. Stallworth kills a man, wasted in his car, and gets out under 30 days in jail? That's not justice.

RIP, Holden Caulfield was the original hipster.

For clarification, I meant "remember from history class," not "remember, as in, we were alive to see that." Sorry, but it really did happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-packing Also, here's some info on Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, the 18 year veteran of the Air Force who was fired, not because of his performance, but because he's gay. Any other business would be in serious trouble under Equal Opportunity Employment laws. http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/2...hting-to-serve/

This is not the first time the executive and the judicial branches have been at odds. Remember the "court-packing" scandal that got FDR a lot of negative press in the 1930's? Bush had a lot of negative things to say about the court when they ruled against his habeus corpus suspension of terrorists in Guantanamo. The court is weird. I'm in two constitutional law classes. It just has a ridiculous amount of power and control over policy, more so than most Americans truly understand. Just a quick policy point, I still don't understand how gays being open in the military equates to being a bad servicemen. Rachel Maddow had a HIGHLY decorated Air Force pilot on, his name escapes me, but he's served during the Gulf War, 2 tours in Iraq, and was shipping out to Afghanistan until his CO outed him and he was effectively fired from the military for being gay. By his resume you'd absolutely consider him a true patriot. Someone please show me some empirical, hard data on how being gay equates you to being a bad soldier and I'll shut up. But seriously. Scan the journals (American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, etc) and show me some hard evidence. And no, I don't mean some pundits take on it or a Republican congressman's take, I want quantifiable, hard, statistically significant data. Something that a political scientist studied and got published. I'm willing to bet this doesn't exist.

Give me a football jersey. Keep it as simple as possible. Basically I want both throwbacks full time. A great football jersey should take approx 2 minutes to design. 2 colors. Home jersey is the base color on white pants and matching socks. Opposite with the road, or road white on white (pants and jersey). For some design, give me stripes around the upper arm, like every classic football jersey. Essentially the Browns, Bears, Jets, Colts, Packers, but with Bills colors. Thats all I need. I HATE swooshy, over stylized circa 1998-2003 era jersey. Stinks of 12-16 aged focused group testing and market research. The best jerseys throughout sports are the one's that have changed the least. The worst uni's are of this lot, see-current Vikings, Bills, Cardinals, et al. The only exception that looks half-way decent are the Broncos, and the Elway era are STILL much better. Why is it when I was about 12 or so-circa 1998, that everyone decided that vibrant colors wont sell or that anything that doesn't have black, silver, navy, or red in it won't sell either?

We sittin' heyah, I'm supposed ta be franchise playa, and we in heyah talkin' bout practice.

As a not so avid college football fan speaking, and I pretty much only have experience following the MAC, I really liked what I saw of LeFevour when he played here. Had a good command of the offense and ran the no huddle almost exclusively. He picked the Bulls apart, and they have a good secondary. But it seems to me everything I've read from pretty much everywhere is about how bad all these guys are at what it seems about is everything. I mean, can all these QB's, even from major programs, really stink so bad if especially in Bradford and Tebow's case they had a lot of playing time? My question basically is, when talking about the draft, is the focus exclusively on the criticisms, the negatives? Every scout seems to pass over the positives and get straight to what needs work or can't be fixed. It seems really easy to do that. In anything, its much easier to criticize than it is to defend something you think is good. True with sports, music, movies, anything. Can all these guys really suck? Is it just a poor QB draft class?