Mickey

Over the last two years, I would say that the best players on the defense were: Fletcher Spikes Clements Milloy Adams Schobel P.Williams The rest are at best average though obviously, McGee is a great return man. Milloy, Adams and Williams are gone. Spikes is coming off a major injury. I'm not encouraged about the prospects for this defense. As for the offense, it has been worse than bad and there is little reason to think it is on the verge of a major turn around. The QB position is, at best, "unsettled" and the line is pretty much the same bunch, minus Williams, that was so awful last year. The WR corps is likely to lose its best player in Moulds. For a long time that offense has been where Offensive Coordinators go to die. I'm not encouraged about the prospects for this offense either. What we have is solid play on special teams, a few good linebackers and a few good skill position players (Evans, Clements, Willis, McGee) and that is about it.

Sure, why not? Who needs a defensive line? Who needs an offensive line? We can win with mirrors and sleight of hand.

TD picked up plenty of supposedly underrated, unde valued guys who had room for improvement. And those were the FA's and draft picks who couldn't play. The big name, high contract FA's he signed were the only signings that worked such as Fletcher, Adams, Milloy and Spikes. Guys like Teague, Anderson and Gandy were all failures and of course, all on the O-line. I trust Marv better to spot guys who can play than I did TD so maybe signing guys on the cheap will work this time around. I have my doubts however.

At the same time, the taxes collected in NYC keep the rest of upstate afloat: "The Center for Governmental Research released a recent report that showed that New York City "contributes significantly more in revenue than it receives in state funds." Upstate areas receive $1.41 in state aid for every tax dollar contributed, while New York City breaks even, the report states. Likewise, the upstate area, with the exception of Rochester County, receives much more than their share of state spending." Without the city, upstate would be financially screwed. Politically, the city is not as dominant in Albany as you might think. There are around 3.7 million people there but there are 7 million or so upstate. Every once in awhile some lunatic raises the idea of separating upstate from the city. Upstaters usually cheer the effort until they see how deeply they would be screwed and how the city would actually benefit.

I asked you 10 questions in that post, you haven't answered one. Since you seem to think I am making this up, lets look at some of the comments from your conservative bretheren: AD: "Sorry about taking away this particular giveaway. Personally I'd like to see governments stop ALL giveaways. It's the road to ruin." Gee, now where oh where did I get the idea that those who oppose this actually oppose the whole idea of a public health clinic, not just condoms? Must just be because I "wish to believe" it. Nope, its because I can read. KRC: "The responsible choice is to get the protection instead of the six-pack of beer, the cup of coffee each day, the McDonalds run, etc." Does he not imply that poor people are wasting money on junk food and beer rather than condoms? He doesn't consider that maybe there wasn't even enough money for rent, or heat or prescription medication, or other necessities of life let alone for a condom. Nope, they must be wasting it on beer and junk food. Chkwing344: "..."well Cletus, I would have used a condom, but the evil Government won't pay for my condoms, beer, and cigarettes so I guess I don't have a choice. I'm sure as hell not giving up my scratch offs or budwieser so I guess I'll have to have some more unwanted children. Hey at least the Government will give me $500 for each brat the wife pops out! Maybe I could sell my food stamps and WIC checks while collecting unemployment and welfare due to this horrible back injury that keeps me from working, but for some reason doesn't affect my softball prowess." If you really manage to screw up your life so bad that you can't afford contraceptives and basic necessities, you are either incredibly lazy or incredibly unfortunate. The vast majority fall into the lazy catagory. Even worse than KRC. What kind of attitude would you suggest is behind the author of that caricature? Poor people who can't afford condoms have to be beer drinking, cigarette smoking, unemployed, welfare cheating, food stamp collecting, disability fraud. Oh yeah, and lazy too. Is there any stereotype left out there? Would you call that fair, balanced, intellectually objective? JSP: "How about we let the Government sterilize the poor?" Conservatives? Mean? Perish the thought. Chknwing334: "How many times have you seen someone at the food store spend their cash on beer and cigarettes and their food stamps on food?" Hard to argue with the scientific nature of that observation but I might point out that maybe the only time he ever comes into contact with such poor people is in a convenience store. Insufficient sample size. Maybe he should hang out at a public health clinic and ask the folks there how many times they weren't able to pay their rent, put food on the table, buy decent clothes or pay for bus fare let alone condoms or oral contraceptives or whatever. KRC: "WHERE IS MY GUBMENT CHECK, DAMMIT!!" Is this not a caricature of poor people as being ungrateful, rude, greedy and stupid? I'd like to hear your spin free explanation of that comment. Chknwing344: "... many poor people do deserve to be poor. You want to skip school to smoke and drink and hang out?" Again, another caricature of poor people. His hate for them is palpable, it practically drips from every one of his posts. JSP: "Sterilization does, and it'd be a hell of alot cheaper than supporting welfare babies or buying a lifetime supply of condoms or BC pills." Bib: "I was a serious advocate of that [sterilization of the poor] for a while, back when welfare was totally out of control. I don't think that is an answer now..." To be fair, Bib has apparently changed his sterilizing ways and thinks that "...our society should be advanced enough to reach out and help it's citizens when it's justified, and temporarily." On the other hand, he keeps soliciting me for sexual favors so I am not sure what to think. Chknwing344: "Actually condoms only save money if you assume we should pay for the medical care of someone who is sick due to their own irresponsible act and also uninsured. " Sounds to me like he doesn't think we should provide care for sick people unless he approves of the way they got sick. I asked him if this meant that he would withdraw medical care for anyone who got sick where the illness could be traced to making poor choices. He didn't answer. So I don't know if he is only concerned with irresponsible acts by poor people or if that concern includes people in his own income bracket who perhaps get lung cancer from smoking and end up being treated in a hospital which is partly subsidized by the goverment or benefits from cancer research paid for by the government. He wasn't willing to clarify that. You are right, besides their own words, I had no basis whatsoever for thinking that conservatives see poor people as ignorant, lazy, greedy, ungrateful, rude and obnoxious fornicating louts who should be sterilized at those free clinics just before we shut them down.

If Clinton had his way, there would have been universal coverage so that would have solved that problem.

Thanks for the lecture in democracy. Why haven't we heard that before when conservatives have bitched about something in California or New York? Please, if I am the first person here to raise a question or objection about an issue arising outside of the jurisdiction where I live, I apologize. I had no idea I was breaking such new ground.

Awwww, and I was having so much fun watching you run away from your crack whore comment, your "not sweet" comment and your "not upstanding citizen comment". I vote for politicians that want to expand health insurance opportunities to cover more of the uninsured while you vote for the knuckleheads on whose watch the ranks of the uninisured have increased by leaps and bounds. I didn't vote for the guy who screwed about 235,000 veterans out of VA health coverage: "Nearly 1.7 million American veterans were uninsured in 2003, according to a study by Harvard Medical School researchers. The number of uninsured veterans has increased by 235,159 since 2000. Many are now uninsured because of a Bush administration order that deprived most middle-income veterans of Veterans Administration health coverage. The study was based on analyses of government surveys. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals or clinics. Many of the 1.694 million uninsured veterans in 2003 were barred from VHA care because of a 2003 Bush Administration order that halted enrollment of most middle income veterans. Others were unable to obtain VHA care due to waiting lists at some VHA facilities, unaffordable co-payments for VHA specialty care, or the lack of VHA facilities in their communities. An additional 3.90 million members of veterans’ households were also uninsured and ineligible for VHA care." Keep bragging about how much you do for the uninsured...by voting for Bush?

I think public health clinics should stock condoms. Your translation of that point: "Helping crack-whores get condoms and drug treatment on you [sic] dime" Crack whores is your example fella, not mine. Just like your comment about the women at these clinics not being upstanding citizens or "not sweet women". Again, your words. If you don't believe that most of the women at these clinics are crack whores or simply loose and immoral, you have a funny way of showing it. If you do, as your words suggest, then stop whining that you are being misunderstood. If you believe that some women are condom worthy and others, the crack whores, aren't, then make that point and tell us how you would pick and choose between the condom worthy and the unworthy. If you are against contraception at the clinics for all then say so and stop throwing in crap about how terrible people are who use these clinics because you are denying the service to all of them, the good the bad and the crack whores who so haunt you. As for your fascination with crack whores and women who are not sweet enough or upstanding citizens enough to be deserving of a condom, seems to me that those are the people we most want to be using condoms if we were at all concerned about controlling STD's. Duh. Any doctor will tell you that if you want to stop the spread of disease, the first people you give condoms to are the whores. Looking at the numbers of uninsured Americans I'm not surprised that you are out there solving the problem, that certainly explains why it is getting worse: "In a report released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau, 45.8 million people were without medical coverage in 2004, an increase of 859,000 people from the year before. The percentage of uninsured people hovered at 15.7 percent in both 2003 and 2004." Uninsured 8/30/05 Keep up the good work.

You are better than Archie Bunker. He was fictional, you are for real, I love it. And to think one poster got on my case for suggesting that there were those here whose real problem wasn't just with condoms at health clinics, they are against public health clinics to begin with. That is what you are really against, not just condoms so stop beating around the bush and come out of your conservative closet. I take it then that you are against government support for treating any sick person whose illness can be traced to poor choices of their own? Wonderful, that should pretty much end governmental support of all hospitals and medical research facilities from one end of the country to the other. I love the thing about crack whores. Your argument that every woman who gets treatment at a public health clinic is a crack whore is rock solid. I encourage you to make it in every political forum you visit. Really, its a sure-fire winner. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that blue collar workers are increasingly joining the ranks of the uninsured as well as the lines outside public health clinics. Don't listen to anyone who suggests that rural communities increasingly mired in poverty are some of the biggest beneficiaries of public health clinics. Dear God in Heaven let this man be in charge of the Republican Party.

Okay, we'll skip over your ridiculous interpretation of the original comment about what option I would prefer in terms of policy and instead address this new point. I want to be sure I understand you correctly: You don't think having contraceptives available at a given public health clinic would at all increase contraceptive use among the users of that clinic? Is that right?

Really? You haven't seen posts against all government give aways? You haven't seen posts about how the only legitimate government endeavors are defending the seas, the land and delivering the mail? You haven't seen posts against all government entitlements and social programs? Where would all that lead to if not to shutting down public health clinics? Didn't you read the posts which flat out accused poor people of loading up on cheeseburgers at mcdonald's and cases of bud light rather than making wiser spending choices? Did you not read the posts stating that all poor people are poor because they are lazy and lousy decisions makers? What do you think is behind those sentiments? Do you think the holders of those sentiments are any happier about providing free drug and alcohol addiction treatments to the poor what with their lazy, lousy, stupid ways? This is a great issue for democrats because it brings out the nasty streak on the right that true moderate swing voters have rejected in the past. I am sure some aren't against public health clinics but if they are against family planning services being available at them then they are at least against having effective public health clinics. Tell you what, call some of the public clinics in your area and ask to talk a physician there. Ask the doc if he or she thinks that a properly stocked health clinic should or should not have contraceptives. I know, actually consulting a medical professional about the best way to deliver health services is just plain silly. Why do that when we can leave it up to a state legislator in thrall to intelligently designed fundamentalists to micromanage a health clinic. Why let the doctors decide how best to spend their budget? Certainly health care decision are better made on the floor of a state house than in a doctor's office. Who cares anyway. They are just a bunch of stupid, lazy poor people. That is the message running through this thread loud and clear.

Yep, you nailed it, that is exactly what I meant, I'll choose who does and does not use a condom. Others, lacking in your analytical and reading comprehension skills, might have thought that what I meant was that a policy that provides contraceptives at public health clinics makes option A more likely which would be better for everyone thus my choice is to favor such a policy.

Compare the FA signings we have had over he last 5 years that worked out and those that failed. I think you'll find that the "whammies" worked out a lot better than the underpriced guys. My hope is that Marv is light years better than TD in spotting underpriced guys that can actually play. I remember that his first acquisition when he first became our HC was Steve Tasker, a nobody off waivers from Houston.

That is all well and good but I worry that the strategy you describe is an awful lot like the strategy we have used during the TD era. Basically hoping to get lucky with low priced FA's, ie, "smaller known players that could develop". It didn't work. Conversely, the few FA acquisitions that did work were the high profile ones such as Spikes, Milloy and Adams. Those guys didn't come cheap, they were Bentley type FA's, high priced and highly sought after. They worked out just fine. The cheaper guys for the most part were either failures or barely adequate. Teague, Anderson and Gandy just to name a few.

I see, so you think corporations would refuse to locate here, not because Spitzer is prosecuting those who committ crimes but because he does so flamboyantly? So they don't care if they get nailed for breaking the law, just that the lawyer nailing them enjoys it? Okie doke.

The way things are going in Mizzou, I would think that he public library has long been sanitized of any books that might promote promiscuity, you know, like books on contraception. I guess if we all just learned to love one another, to always signal before changing lanes, to wait 30 minutes after lunch before swimming and to say "please" and "thank you" we would make of this world a paradise on Earth. Thus, if only responsible people who never make a mistake had sex, this wouldn't be an issue. However, back in the real world, sane people make public policy based on what people actually do rather than on what we wish they would do. Besides, your problem isn't with condoms. If it were up to you, there wouldn't be any government give away like public health clinics, no?

Hold on Bib, I'm still trying to get my arms around the idea that you supported sterilization of the poor. Only a fool would fashion public health policy based on what people should do. What people actually do would seem to me to be a more sound basis for making such decisions. Yet that is all so many here want to talk about. An inspirational discussion over whether the poor are irresponsible for screwing without rubbers or other contraceptives they can't afford. Riveting. Having a public health clinic without contraceptives and family planning services is like having a first aid kit without bandaids. There are plenty here who oppose the very idea of a public health clinic let alone any particular program it might have. No sense really talking to anyone like that and their viewpoint is, at least for now, one from the outer fringe. That is what I like about this story, it smokes the Pat Buchanan ugly side of the right out into the open. If Democrats are going to start winning elections again it will be the result of the "compassionate conservative" bs being unmasked to reveal the public health clinic closing, sterilizing truth.

The measure targets contraception, not just rubbers. It includes natural family planning services as well. Can you buy that in a drugstore? The goal her is fewer sexually transmitted illnesses and fewer unwanted children. Both of those end up costing us a lot more than would providing contraceptive services at public clinics. This measure will result in fewer people using contraception. That translates into more sickness, more unwanted children, more abortions and higher health care costs. I can see why you are more interested in discussing rhetorical style.

Vaccines keep people from getting sick, uninsured ones too. And that saves money. Condoms also keep people form getting sick, uninsured people too. And that saves money. Do you want to spend pennies on condoms or millions on unwanted children and venereal disease? Why don't you go stand in a corner with some other wingnut and have a nice long debate about what people should and shouldn't do while the rest of us deal with the reality of what people actually do? God, I so wish you were running the Republican Party. Imagine the slogans: "No sex for the Poor". "The poor: they deserve it!". "Eff the Poor". I'd love for the democrats to run against that platform.

I think you are right, most corporations who committ fraud against their customers and shareholders would probably be more willing to locate in a state that turned a blind eye to that sort of thing. Sounds like an economic plan to me. "Come to NY where Corporate fraud is not only legal, we'll subsidizie it." Hey, this could really work.

what programs are those?

We are not trying to fix the problems of the world. We are trying to get a condom to woman who is going to have sex and who can't afford to raise the child that might result or pay for the medical treatment needed if she catches a disease. Pennywise and pound foolish. Are you also against vaccines for the poor? Let 'em get small pox I say.

Apparently it would be more fiscally responsible to save the $8.99, pretend that people won't have sex and then spend a few hundred grand feeding, sheltering and providing health care for the babies that result and for the diseases that spread more rapidly. Now there is sound public policy for you. Soooo many here are stuck in a philosophical lab. Such a fascinating debate on personal responsibility. Classic sound and fury signifying nothing. Lets make it simple: A.Poor woman doesn't want kids, wants sex + condom = no kid, no disease B.Poor woman doesn't want kids, wants sex - condoms = kids and disease I choose option "A". What you have to understand is that these people aren't just against condoms being provided in a health clinic, they are against publicly funded health clinics period. I suspect primarily because they don't ever anticipate needing one themselves but that is another story.

Funny, preventing people from making the responsible choice, contraception & safe sex, is considered by this upside down crew to be promoting personal responsibility. It is a health clinic for people who have no insurance and can't afford medical care. This is a health issue. Banning contraceptives, even instruction on natural family planning from those clinics, has a very real effect. For those of us who live in the real world, this will not result in any less sexual activity. While some of you are pointing fingers or bewailing the lack of personal responsibility in the modern world, the rest of us will be trying to figure out what to do with the unwanted babies and increased spread of disease that will result. Maybe we should shut down drug and alcohol rehab facilities and refuse all health care treatment subsidized in anyway by the government for cancer patients who smoked or anyone whose unhealthy choices contribute to their illnesses.