Mickey

Pay him LT money or even QB money. You never know. Lets see just how bad Seattle wants to keep him.

You can't do any better than bringing in proven talent. I don't want to spend another year wondering why our OL is so bad. If we end up struggling on offense let it be for a reason other than the line for once. Even if we still have a bad line, at least we'll know it wasn't for lack of trying to get the best. No more 3rd-5th round draft choices, no more signing mediocre cast offs, no more high draft pick busts. Lets invest in the best offensive lineman out there, guys that have proven they can get the job done. No more gambles.

Just what we need, another hot-shot skill player rather than a lineman who can actually block.

Any early board favorites as far as UDFA's are concerned? I say we sign LeCharles Bentley, center for the Saints and Steve Hutchinson, a guard for the Seahawks. I think they are UFDFA's this year. Move Jason "Superman" Peters to LT and give MW one last chance at RT. The new line would be: LT Jason Peters LG Steve Hutchinson C LeCharles Bentley RG Chris Villarial RT Mike Williams Maybe we keep Jason at RT and either live with Gandy, draft a new LT or move Trey Teague out there. Frankly, I'd pay just about anything to pick up those two guys and I don't care what they cost. The future is now.

You don't understand, my wife is a lingerie model. That is the genius of the tax free rule. My wife can't object because it benefits her as well as her colleagues, her increased income helps me to live large and Mickeyania becomes the beneficiary of an unprecedented wave of lingerie model immigration. You see, contrary to popular belief, I didn't sleep my way through all of law school. I stayed awake for the good parts. "How to rig the game so that every possible result benefits you 101." My favorite class.

Our first order of business would be to establish a non-aggression pact with JoeSixPackylvania. The second order of business would be to declare tax free status for lingerie models residing within Mickeyania. Oh, and Presidential BJ's would be required rather than grounds for impeachment.

Yes. There have been thieves always and always theft has been against the law and always have there been law enforcers. In the absence of a perfect result, we can either keep trying or give up. I opt to keep trying to stop theft with laws and law enforcers even though I know that will not stop all theft. "Small" governments throughout history have been just as corrupt, if not more so, as "large" governments. It is not the number of political parties nor simply the size of government that breeds corruption, it is power itself that corrupts. Those that can steal, do. A third-party, to have any effect, would have to have power but with that power would be just as likely to be corrupted as any other party. The idea that a third-party would act as a new sheriff in town to keep an eye on the other two is as quaint as it is unrealistic. Odds are it would simply become another pig at the trough. History is also replete with examples of what happens in the absence of government or some other central authority able to regulate, punish or otherwise keep lawlessness to manageable levels. The Armerican West is a good example. Over the pioneer years there was little or no government, law enforcement, regulation or any other chaos limiting mechanism aside from ones own weapons. The result was murder, mayhem, chaos and lawlessness. There is a reason we have government, it exists because we need it to exist to achieve what we can't achieve on our own which covers everything from a police force to a moon shot. That doesn't mean that anyone should be blind to corruption, to abuse, to the dark side of power. When it is discovered, let the indictments flow and let each bum caught with his hand in the till be fired by the voters. If there is a lesson to be learned here I think it is that our system of checks and balances works best when we have a divided government. You'd be surprised how effective of a deterrent it can be for Senator Bluff-n-Fuss to know that there is someone with the power and motivation to crack open his secret stash of dirty deals and dirtier dollars. ....and no, I don't think that is a perfect solution or that it will end political thievery in our time thus reversinig the course of human history. If you have some great alternative to supporting reformers, better laws, better enforcement, divided government and the like, then I'm all ears.

Republican 2006 Campaign Strategy: Vote Republican or terrorists will kill you. Democratic 2006 Campaign Strategy: Vote Democratic or Republicans will kill you.

Didn't this new guy come out for gay marriage, the pro-life side and against the Iraq war? If that is true and wasn't just an campaign head-fake, he certainly wouldn't be considered a conservative here in the US. In fact, he would be a pariah if he was a republican, one of those moderates the Coulter Brigade loves to denigrate as a RINO, ie, a less than ideologically pure republican.

That's one. Another might be that if you are a politician, keep your hand out of the cookie jar.

Just shows how quick a corruption scandal can change the political landscape. Hmmmm......what lesson should we learn from this?

If that happens, I am getting some sidewalk chalk from the kids to draw a circle around my house and then declaring the formation of the independent state of Mickeyania.

I am optimistic, if not quite enthusiastic. The fact that he gets along with players sounds like a useless bromide but I actually think that kind of thing matters. NFL rosters are chock full of huge egos coupled with low IQs and seasoned with stress, pressure and paranoia. Getting all those different personalities to work together and be productive is no easy task. Mularkey clearly was not able to do that very well. Two of the best players on the team, one on each side of the ball, had feuds with Mularkey that resulted in them being off the field for a few games in a season where we were desperate for wins. It is easy to blame the players for being what they are, egomaniacs, but you know, the job of the HC is to do whatever needs to be done to make these guys, even despite themselves sometimes, winners. If you can't do that, if you can't keep the team running on all cylinders, egos and all, you can't coach at this level. Jauron emphasized one thing during the press conference and that was that winning requires you to be good everywhere. It isn't one thing, its everything. I take that to mean not just that they won't put all their resources into the defense or the offense. I think what he was getting at, diplomatically, is not ignoring certain positions in favor of others which is really what brought Donahoe down. He just didn't put much into the offensive lines. Jauron even used the QB positiona as an example, he said that if you have a good QB but nothing else, you aren't going anywhere. The OL in particular has just not been given much attention and the one large investment it received is a bust. I think Jauron is going to worry less about having world class talent at the glamour positions and more about getting quality across the board. You need some playmakers but you need talent everywhere. I hope that kind of thinking translates into wins. We'll see.

I don't think that anyone, let alone Iran, has any doubts that Israel has them.

Don't paint all the fans with one brush. Many of us have been clamoring for more investment on the lines rather than secondrate WR's like Parrish and Reed. Some of us would have preferred the steady Winfield to the flashy Clements.

This kind of thing has happened time and time again when we have been on the verge of major news. Whenever a poster suddenly pops up out of nowhere and with his second post claims to have an insided source and then starts making "predictions" just when there is a major decision facing the team, odds are about 95% that its BS. Probably higher. Especially when the "prediction" is of something you could get right 1/2 the time with a coin flip.

Its waaaay better than ESPN, it covers just about every possibility so there is a good chance I can later claim to have nailed the story. Usually they don't even bother crafting that level of BS prediciton. I can't take credit for this, its pretty much the exact same "inside scoop" that caused a furor a few years back only it was over Jeff Blake. Really, how often do you hear the words "furor" and "Jeff Blake" in the same sentence?

Yes, technically its called "Imadeitup". It is an exact adaptation of an "inside scoop" from a few years back when we were waiting to see if we signed Jeff Blake. Just insert "Jeff Blake" where you see "Mike Sherman" and its the same post. It covers just about any possibility that could reasonably come to pass. Call me Kreshkin.

My inside sources (yes, that means more than one) tell me that Sherman is a done deal but they haven't signed a contract yet. Also, both he and the Bills are free in the meantime to negotiate with other coaches/teams to try and get a better deal for themselves and if that happens either can opt out with no penalty. If that occurs, the Bills will hire Jauron providing they don't get hung up in contract negotiations. Since they expect there to be no problems with the Sherman deal, they haven't bothered to negotiate with Jauron so that would take a day or two if Sherman gets lured by a better deal. If Jauron and the Bills can't agree on a contract, the Bills will definitely hire Caldwell because he has been highly recommended to Marv and Ralph by none other than Bill Polian. The new coach will be announced next week during a morning press conference, possibly as early as monday but no later than wednesday.

CDC CDC 2006 Budget Request Summary I am sure that with a 7+ Billion dollar budget there has been some poorly spent money but overall, I think they do a very good job with, compared to the severity of the threats for which they are our only line of defense, very little money.

Republican Win-win formula: 1. Oppose creation of agency to regulate an industry. 2. Appoint executives of industry agency is supposed to regulate to top agency posts. 3. Cut budget of said agency. 4. Watch regulations go unenforced by said agency. 5. Wait for the lack of regulation to result in a highly publicized disaster. 6. Point out that regulations and the agency itself are clearly a waste of time since they failed to prevent the disaster. 7. Run for election on a platform claiming that government can't do anything right and cite the agency, its regulations and the disaster as an example. 8. Reinforce as much as possible the notion that if there is an agency and there are regluations and problems occur, the agency and the regulations must have caused the problems. 9. Repeat steps 2-8. Democratic win-win formula: 1. Identify a problem. 2. Create an agency to fix said problem. 3. Take credit for fixing the problem. 4. Claim that problem is never quite fixed so agency must continue. 5. Claim that the reason problem is never quite fixed is due to a shortage of cash and/or regulations. 6. Increase budget and enact additional regulations. 7. Repeat steps 3-6.

I don't think it is just that but who knows? At this point, this administration doesn't have a lot of credibility and since they went outside of FISA, there is simply no oversight by anyone, zilch. So you just have to take their word for it when they say they only tapped people with AQ contacts or who were talking to someone on the phone who was outside the US. If that were the case though, why in the world did they go outside of FISA which, in those situations, lets them tap without warrants anyway? I really don't see what the problem is in understanding that what was done violated FISA. FISA would allow them to tap the crap out of people with AQ contacts even without a warrant for a full year with extensions available. All they have to do in that case is notify the court; notify, not ask permission. So, if all the people tapped were tied to AQ, why conduct warrantless taps outsided of FISA when they could have easily conducted the same warrantless taps within FISA? One answer is that they are lying about having tapped only AQ related persons. Another is that there was some technical problem that made it impossible for them to get what they needed and comply with FISA. Maybe they were casting out some huge electronic net and had no idea whose conversations they were snagging until it was later analyzed so that they had no way of providing FISA with a name of the target. I don't know. At this point though, this administration has so little credibility in so many quarters that not many people are willing to take at face value their claim that they only tapped AQ because if that were the case, no credible reason for proceeding outside of FISA has been presented.

In this discussion, you have said: "This is a battle between executive powers & congressional powers." "When and if this thing ends up at SCOTUS, I don't see FISA standing up." "FISA may not be applicable, and may not even withstand a constitutional challenge." Which I summarized as: "...I think GG is trying to say, that in passing FISA, the congress impermissably infringed upon a power reserved to the President." Based on your reaction, if this is an unfair "interpretation" of what you are arguing, please tell me what you were really saying in those quotes if not that FISA is unconstitutional ( ie, not withstand a constitutional challenge) because congress overstepped its bounds (ie, battle between executive and congressional powers)? If you don't think and are not arguing that FISA is an unconstitutional infringement of the Presidents implied powers as I "interpreted", upon what grounds are you arguing that FISA is unconstitutional? What clause of the constitution is being violated by FISA and in what manner?

The domestic/foreign distinction originally was one based on where the intel was gathered. It was important because the US Constitution and the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement doesn't extend to foreign territory. The Fourth Amendment does not have an exception that I know of that permits unreasonable searches and seizures, ie warrantless searches, on US territory simply because a foreign threat is involved. The President certainly has no express constitutional authority to conduct warrantless taps on US soil involving US persons. FISA tries to recognize the situation where you have essentially foreign intelligence being gathered on domestic soil. There, the temptation and the need to gather intel without having to demonstrate probable cause is at its greatest. How then to balance security needs and the constitution? The answer was FISA. If a foreign agent is involved, under FISA they can tap for one year plus extensions without a warrant here in the US. They can tap anyone for 15 days without a warrant after a declaration of war by congress. In an emergency, they can tap anyone without a warrant for 72 hours. When a target is a "US person" the constitutional concerns are at their greatest because you have a US person on US soil. Applicability of the Fourth Amendement there is clear. There a warrant must, apart from the exceptions I described, be issued. The security people were properly concerned about applying for warrants and maintaining secrecy. Thus the special FISA courts were set up with all their classified procedures. I don't think any leak of a requested warrant has ever occurred from that court. Not only that but in practice, the court has awarded the warrants requested virtually all the time (99.5% since 2000). The hope was that FISA satisfied the Fourth Amendment on the one hand and permitted the intel gathering that needed to be done without security people having to worry about exposure or piles of turned down warrant requests. The standard rule is that when the President acts with congressional approval, his power is at its greatest for he acts with the power of both branches. When he acts where congress has already acted, his power is at its lowest and usually is only upheld, at the expense of congress, if he is exercising an express grant of authority to him under the constitution. Where congress has not acted one way or the other, that is where the question gets complicated and one might find an implied power to act. FISA however contains an exclusivity clause which, the argument goes, means the Presidents power here is at its weakest and must be supported by an express power. It is pretty complicated and I am learning more and more so please don't take this as a declaration of the rights of man, I am just trying to reason through this. I don't think anyone is even seriously arguing as I think GG is trying to say, that in passing FISA, the congress impermissably infringed upon a power reserved to the President. It has been upheld as constitutional but the challenges were from defendants trying to get tapes of their calls tossed out of court because FISA violated the Fourth Amendment. No President has ever challenged it that I know of as being unconstitutional because it limits his ability to circumvent the Fourth Amendment on domestic soil as to US persons. Maybe that is where the argument is going to go, I don't know.

I've since done just a bit of research, nothing huge, but some. A good thing to read on this is the report of the Congressional Research Service which you can check out here. You have to remember that you start off with the Fourth Amendment which is very clear: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Electronic surveillance is considered to be a "search" so it applies to the NSA taps. You can't get much clearer than "shall not be violtated" or "no warrants shall issue". In 1972, the supreme court rejected the argument that domestic security requirements were an exception to the warrant requirement: "These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch..." Accordingly, there had to be prior judicial approval, ie, a warrant. That was the case anyway prior to FISA. It may be that the real constitutional problem with FISA is not that it is an impermissible encroachment upon one branch's power by another but that it practically amends the Constitution by altering the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. Congress can't amend the Constitution by any procedure other than that established for a Constituional Amendment. As for the separation of powers, both the congress and the President have constitutionally allocated powers that arguably include control over surveillance. Too many people seem to assum that because the President is Commander in Chief that he must also have in his hands all of the various war powers and that the Congress has none of those powers. Congressional powers related to national security include: The Constitution specifically gives to Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” 11 U.S. CONST. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1; to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” id. § 8, cl. 11; “To raise and support Armies,” and “To provide and maintain a Navy,” id. § 8, cls. 12-13; “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” id. § 8, cl. 14, “To declare War,” id. § 8, cl. 1; and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The President's power is simply to act as the C-n-C and to enforce the laws. I could go on but clearly, if you read that report, this is a seriously important issue and if it becomes a case, it will bo one of the most important constitutional questions addressed by the court in a long time.