Mickey

He didn't cost us a first round pick. We traded first round picks with Dallas, ours in 2005 for theirs in 2004. What we lost was our second round pick in 2004. That and the difference between Dallas' 2004 first round pick and our 2005 first round pick. Theirs was a late round pick and given our finish, our first round pick in 2005 will also be a late round pick.

We should change the name of the PPP to the "Airing of Grievances" board.

Sure she has a right to wear it. I think if anyone else at the prom is bothered by it they should flaunt some confederate flag toilet paper to demonstrate just what they think of the confederate heritage. The answer to free speech is more free speech. How about a tuxedo with "Sherman Rules" printed across the back?

Reputation ruined? He is more famous now than ever, tons and tons of people saw the movie. Even people who hate him are talking about him. He didn't ruin his reputation, he made it.

OJ's record breaking year: I was 12 and we had recently moved from Buffalo to Syracuse. I missed home terribly and felt like an outcast in Syracuse. We wore ties to school in Buffalo, they wore jeans here. We said "pop", they said "soda". We rooted for the Bills, they rooted for the Jets, Giants and, gulp, the Dolphins. It was hell. The Bills were never on TV so I had to follow Simpson's "Rushing Odyssey" by pressing my ear up against my GE Clock Radio where I could just make out the faint whisper of a broadcast through the static. Three and a half hours every Sunday, lying on the floor with the radio on my head. I would do a play by play report to my family during the commercials. As the season went on, how many yards OJ got became more important than the outcome of the game. The big deal was whether or not he was going to get 100 yards. Through the static, I listened to every yard. That year, my Dad decided to take us to our first Bills game. How he managed to scrape together the money for 8 tickets, I'll never know. They were playing the Bengals late in the season and it was cold, you know what I mean, Buffalo cold. We were in snowmobile suits, bear paw mittens and Bills hats, the ones with the tassles on top. What we wanted most in the world was to see them win and see OJ go for a 100. It was a tight, defensive game that was tied late 13-13. The Bengals broke our hearts with a FG with 3 seconds left to win it 16-13. So much for the win. As for OJ, he gained 99 yards, 99 yards. So close. In retrospect, it was a fitting introduction to being a serious Bills fan especially over the next 18 years or so.

That is right, the Bengals are not a bad team, we just made them look like a bad team.

At least I have an excuse, I am a treasonous gay loving christ hating pagan. I don't have to go to church, a fact the congregation, curiously enough, keeps pointing out to me everytime I show up. I am beginning to think they are on to my evil agenda. Curses.

That is not true. Voucher programs do not provide just choice between public schools but between private and public schools. See School Choice Cleveland, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Vermont and DC all have voucher programs. The Cleveland program does allow switching to another public school outside the district but no such schools are willing to participate in the program so the choice is effectively limited to just private schools. The Colorado program was ruled unconstitutional under that state's constitution. The program would have taken funds raised locally and provided them to private schools with no control over them by the school board. The Colorado Constitution requires that funds raised locally for education be locally controlled. Had the program been enacted, it appears that it would have been a choice between public or private, not a choice between public schools. The Florida program is actually pretty good and does include public schools however students are only able to get a voucher if their school is failing certain tests two years in a row. That really has hardly ever happened. It is more of a theoretical program than a reality. Maine just has it for people who live in areas without public schools. Rather than build new schools, Maine long ago just gave people the money to go to a private school. The private school doesn't include religious schools. It also doesn't include other public schools. The Milwaukee program also is a program between public and private, not one between public schools. The public by and large really has no trouble with plans that allow a choice among the public schools in their district. That way, the public money doesn't get funneled to private schools. The real argument here is over public money going to private schools. Even with tuition assistance and vouchers, public schools will remain the only choice for many people. Reducing the funding of those schools and channeling it to private schools will certainly be of benefit to some but lets not pretend that doesn't leave the poor behind. It does.

It is only an issue for the hypersensitive. In a topsy-turvy way, the anger over the trend in preference of saying "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas" is as much an example of silly political correctness as insisting that people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". The easy resolution for all but the hyper is: Say Merry Christmas when you wish to bestow such a wish on christians and if you don't know if the recipients of your wish would be offended, say Happy Holidays. It isn't political correctness, it is simply being polite. Remeber when people actually cared about such a thing? Remember when boorish behaviour was shunned and not applauded or rewarded with an appreciative and like minded audience?

I've gott stop putting vodka in my morning cocoa

Excellent points. I would only add that what does concern me is that we were unable, not for lack of trying, to run the ball against a defense committed to stop the run. The surest sign of a real power running team is one that can move the ball even against that type of defense. That doesn't mean they have to put together four or five 7 minute drives of 60 or more yards but it does mean that they produce a few first downs before they punt. I think this problem is more indicative of what still is the real problem on this team, an offensive line that is average at best.

I think it is a little more complicated than that. They were putting a ton of guys in the box, especially on first down and in response, we ran the ball anyway. Drew can't beat that kind of defense if you don't let him throw against it, can he? Lets take a look at the drives in the Bengals game: First Drive: We threw on first and completed it for 5 yards. Then we ran for two and threw incomplete on 3rd and 3 against a pass defense. Drew did not fail to beat a defense over committed to the run on this series. Second Drive: We ran into the teeth of a an 8 man front and lost 2 yards. We ran again on 2nd and 12 and got only 4 yards. That set up a 3rd and 8. Drew threw complete to Evans but he fumbled. Again, this was not a series where Drew failed to pass with success against a run defense. Third Drive: Drew completes a 60 yard flea flicker that involved a fake run to Willis with a pitch back to Drew. Here is an example of Drew burning a defense that was heavily weighted to stop the run. He ends up throwing a TD pass to Evans so I assume there are no complaints here. Fourth Drive: We run on first for a yard. On second and 9, Drew hits Moulds for a first down. Again, they didn't have him throw against that first down run defense. We run again on first and lose 3 yards. Two first downs, two runs. Neufeld drops a pass and then Drew misses Moulds who was covered anyway and we were flagged for an illegal shift. Drive over. The 3 yard loss and the drop billsfanone that drive and neither were problems you can blame on Drew. Further, Drew was not given an opportunity to throw on first against that stacked defense. Fifth Drive: This is after the Kitna fumbel, we are up 21-10 and have a first and ten at their 28. Drew throws it away while he evades the rush, no one open so he safely whizzes the ball out of bounds (the very thing so many have pointed out he doesn't do enough of). We run for 14 on 2nd down. First and ten at the 14, Drew runs a QB draw for 8 to the 6. We then lose 7 yards on the swing pass and fumble to Willis. That was not Willis' nor Drew's finest play for sure. Drew comes back and hits Moulds for 7, they are offsides and we take the penalty setting up 3rd and 2 from the 6. We run Williams for no gain and kick the FG. You can fault Drew for throwing a catchable but awkward pass to Willis. However, he didn't fail to produce because of his inability to beat a defense stacked to stop the run. He simply threw it away while avoiding a sack when no one was open. Pretty smart thing to do considering we are up by 11 and already in FG range. Sixth Drive: There are only 59 seconds left in the half and we just took over at the Bengal 29 after Kelsay's pick. We are up 24-10. Once again we ran on first down, gaining only 2 yards and using 26 of our 59 seconds. We throw incomplete on second but Drew hits Moulds for 11 down to the 16 and then uses the first down to spike the ball and stop the clock at 12 seconds. An incompletion to Moulds leads to another Lindell FG. We are now up 27-10 at the half. That is Drew's entire first half and I think it is clear that the reason he didn't burn them for stacking against the run on first down is because we went ahead and ran on first down most of the time anyway. Facing 2nd and 13, Drew then was trying to throw against a defense that had switched back into a standard pass defense. I think the real concern is that for a power running team, we are not able to run the ball against a defense committed to stop the run. Anyone can run against a dime defense. Seventh Drive: True to from, we run on first down again and this time lose 4 yards. Two incomplete passes followed and they came against pass defenses since we needed long yardage. Eighth Drive: We finally throw on first and Drew completes it for 6. We get a frist down and pass again but Drew gets sacked. They saw it coming. We lose big yardage. Drew gets most of it back on a completion to Reed but it isn't enough and we punt. Ninth Drive: Incompletion to Moulds. We started the drive on our 17 and are winning so we don't do anything stupid. It was a pass but a short one and Moulds was covered. We run for a yard and another incompletion follows against a pass defense. Probably Drew's worst series. Tenth Drive: We go 55 yards on 9 plays and kick a FG after being stopped at the 2. Of the four first down plays against a run defense, we ran 3 times for 3, -2 and 5 (Bledsoe keeper). We threw once, complete for 10 yards to Moulds. Drew also had completed one for 16 yards to Evans and got an interference call on a pass to Reed for 18. Drew accounted for 49 of the 55 yards on the drive. I assume no one has any complaints about his performance on this drive. Eleventh Drive: This one goes for 12 plays, 52 yards and a FG when we stall on the Bengal 15. In the drive, Of the four first downs on the drive, we run on three of them for 7, 2 and 5 yards. The one first down throw was a sack. It would have been nice if he threw it away but that has nothing to do with failing to burn a defense stacked to stop the run. ON the drive, Drew completes passes of 10, 11, 10 and 14 for a total of 45 yards which isn't bad considering it was only a 52 yard drive. I see no real problems with his performance on this drive at all. Twelfth Drive: We run every play. Bottom line, we ran against that run defense most of the time, that is why Drew didn't burn it, he wasn't given a chance to. The poor performance running the ball on frist down led to second and long and third and long situations. On those plays, the Bengals did not overload against the run. With all due respect, I don't think it is at all fair to say that Drew was unable to capitalize against a run oriented defense. Depite the defense, we stubbornly ran anyway. Given the ultimate results, I have no complaints and frankly, I think when you look at the play by play, Drew had a better game than we are giving him credit for. You can't ingnore the extaordinary events the were going on in the first half with the turnovers and all. Those events (Evans' fumble, blocked kick and Spikes INT) all worked to deprive Drew and the offense of possessions and you can't run stats up sitting on the bench.

Maybe you can tell me just what my agenda is? I supported this war so my basic "agenda" is to win it and get the eff out. There have been plenty of letters from soldiers passed on here, mostly of the type that says something along the lines of "things are much better in Iraq than is being reported, here is the real story". I have read all of those and I don't think you'll find a single post from me dismissing out of hand any of them. I got up the other morning and there was a long letter from a soldier in the letters to the editor section of the Syracuse Post Standard. So I passed it on with little comment other than to point out that since so many similar letters have been posted here, I wanted to add that one for a little balance. Sound like a diabolical agenda to you?

Why is everyone focusing on the stop-loss thing so much? That is only one of the criticism's made by this soldier. Why are there no comments about his charge that there weren't enough troops, that they were not sufficiently trained and had inadequate resources from uniforms to bullet proof vests? What about his objection to the President using the royal "we" all the time as if he is the one sacrificing? Is there any source from whom some of you would accept criticism about any apect of this war or are all such concerns the sole traffic of treasonous liberals and whining troops? The election is over, you don't have to go into "protect Bush at all costs" mode at the mere mention of any possible imperfections. Though the election is over the war is not. We have a lot of work to do over there and we aren't going to get it done if we aren't willing to take a good long look at the good, the bad and the ugly.

There have been plenty of letters from troops posted here in support of the war, a little balance doesn't hurt. I won't stoop to the oft repeated favorite tactic of some and call anyone who questions a story from the front lines a jerk who doesn't "support our troops". We ought to be able to discuss the war and how things are going without pulling that out those kinds of cheap shots. Clearly, this guy has been through one seriously rough deal and I hope he and all the troops get home safe as soon as possible.

Yes, I know, absolutely everything the government has done throughout history is a complete and abject failure. The CDC, NASA, the military, NIH, FDA, all of it, a complete disaster.

He is probably used to taking credit for what his servants do.

Just one Soldier's opinion, from the Syracuse paper this morning which I pass on without comment other than that I hope it is all worth it and over sooner rather than later. To the Editor: In March 2003, I was ordered to go to Iraq to "be all I can be" and fight for my country like other soldiers in the U.S. Army. Besides being in Iraq for one year for no reason, there was another thing that annoyed my fellow soldiers and me. That was the way President Bush used the word "we" when he talked about the sacrifices that soldiers are making, extending our stay in wartime and the reason we were there. The sacrifices that soldiers are making in Iraq are being tainted every time Bush talks about it using "we." The president is not the one who is losing his wife, children and dog to some other man named "Jodie" at home. He is not the one missing the first breath of a firstborn or the last breath of a soldier, mom or dad. When I was in Iraq, I was working 16-hour shifts due to the lack of troops and the level of untrained personnel that deployed with me. About 75 percent of the soldiers had only two sets of uniforms for the first six months. Imagine trying to wash your body with three bottles of water and having to wash your uniforms day in and day out. At least it was easy to dry my uniforms in 115-degree weather. A great percentage of the soldiers did not have a bullet-proof vest. Therefore, we had to try to find pieces of metal that would fit in our vests in order to have more protection. We also had to find sand bags for our vehicles. These are some of the things that happen to soldiers in wartime, while the president is sitting at home saying "we" did this and that. Extending the stay of a soldier in wartime is one of the worst things for a soldier's morale because we are the ones sleeping in a sandbox while Bush is in Washington cruising through four more years. I was stuck in Iraq for only one year while other soldiers are there for much longer. One and a half, two years or more is what our troops are now facing. The Reservists and National Guard are getting abused out there. They are undertrained and underpaid waiting for that "one weekend a month and two weeks a year." One week before I was supposed to leave Iraq, I received orders (stop-loss policy) to stay in Iraq for three more months. That was one of the saddest days in my life. I have never felt like hurting people for no reason like I did that day. So I can understand why soldiers may start to lose it in wartime, when someone is 4,000 miles away messing with your life and you are left out there powerless. So, how can Bush talk about family and unity when soldiers are kept in war even after they have served? The president should ask himself: Why are U.S. troops in Iraq? Because we, the soldiers, are the ones living the everyday, never-ending hell. Soldiers and people dying, a great amount of oil, but still we have not found any weapons of mass destruction. When you ask a soldier who has been living in Iraq for a year why he is there in front of a camera, he might reply that it is to make Iraqi people free. But when he is out of the spotlight, his anger, pain and hate will come flying out like it does in his everyday Iraqi life. The way the president uses "we" when he talks about the soldiers' sacrifices, the separation from their families and why our troops are in Iraq really brings down our troops' morale. President Bush is not the one on guard duty thinking about his family in a distant place. Now we know that the meaning of "we" for the president is a soldier, another soldier, or other soldiers, but the term does not include him. "We" the soldiers are the ones fighting the war while Bush keeps saying "we" when he is actually sitting at home. Edwar A Uceta Espinal Liverpool

You get what you pay for. Not all problems, but quite a few. For example, if you live in a school district that spends 4,000 per pupil but does a lousy job, you might solve that by moving into a district that spends 18,000 per pupil that, with those kinds of resources, does a bang up job. Of course, you would have to be able to afford to live in that district which takes money. Within reason, money matters.

I am sure their are good defense contractors and bad ones. It is not as if the Defense Department has never been ripped off. With procurements in the billions, you can bet there is corruption enough to go around. There is no need however to condemn all for the sins of a few. I do think there is an interesting link between education and defense. Obviously, technology plays a major role in the strength of our forces. To continue to have the best technology we need two things, brains and money. The old guns or butter analogy doesn't work. They are dependent on one another. Sooner or later a weak economy and/or a weak education system will lead to a weak military. I know it is natural to think that our forces are superior because our troops are braver and stronger. Maybe they are but having the best weapons, tactics and training doesn't hurt. Economically however, there is a level of military investment that simply can't be sustained. Ask the Soviet Union about that. Are we there yet? Probably not but it is foolish to think that a body politic that punishes every leader who suggests limits to military investment and rewards those who are always willing to spend more on weapons will not cross that line when it comes to it. The idealogical appetite of a large portion of the electorate for more military spending, always more, more, more, is insatiable. Logically, that has to eventually lead to ruin.

What rights are being taken advantage of that are not "theirs?" Who are we talking about here? No disrespect intended but one could easily argue that to trade your freedom for a measure of safety at some point becomes cowardice. A police state would be much safer so your fears would be less. It requires fear, not courage to prefer such a choice. It is not a noble sacrifice for King and Country, it is a selfish and cowardly capitulation to fear. What did Roosevelt say, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Are terrorists that much more frightening than were the Nazis so as to justify abandoning the constitution? Besides, I think the idea that virtually suspending constitutional rights makes defending against terrorists a whole lot easier to be overblown. It doesn't seem to be working all that well in Chechnya and I don't think constitutional rights are hindering Russian investigators in the least. That would be a heck of a thing, trade your freedom for nothing but imaginary safety. Wow. We have been fighting and dying for our freedoms since 1776. What a shame to be so eager to give them up now. Are the dangers we face so much more than those faced by other Americans that in our peril we have to give up the freedoms they, in their own times of danger, had the courage to keep?

What is the difference between having to go to a judge and get a warrant and having to go to the head honcho of the "select group" to get permission which in essence is just what a warrant is? We have a select group, they are known as the judiciary.

Depends on the alternatives.

Misca, why are you guys so worried about Hillary? Unbeatable? I don't think she could win diddly and I actually like her.

Why do you think Powell would get the nomination? He was also pretty clearly not on board with many of Bush's policies and simply played the good soldier until he could honorably get the eff out of that administration which he did at the first opportunity. Let me understand this logic, you can't be the party of African Americans unless you run one for President? Hmmm. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if any party can be the one to claim that it is the party of African Americans, it would be the party that African Americans overwhelmingly support, in numbers that are so one sided it is embarassing, regardless of the color of the skin of their candidate. That would make sense wouldn't it, that the party they support is "their" party? See? I am just full of crazy, whacky ideas. We christ hating, troop disrespecting pagans are like that.