Mickey

I see, so if it is long, it must not have substance. Gee, can't argue with that logic. I'll try and keep my posts short, insulting and devoid of analysis in the future because that is what we need more of around here.

That's it, run away punk.

Teen pregnancy rates logged by the CDC are for ages 15-19. Most of them can't vote, not old enough. I know of no database that would keep track of the voting habits of pregnant teenage females who are old enough to vote. If you think that would be revealing, I suggest you do the research yourself as I did rather than just suppose you must be right. I am not sure the point you are hoping to make. Is it your theory that within the red states the minorities, being more irresponsible and also democrats, drove up their teen pregnancy numbers making the red states look bad yet somehow didn't have the same effect in the blue states? Let me guess, you weren't a math major were you? If your theory is that poor black democrats have high teen pregnancy rates, wouldn't you expect to find higher percentages of them in blue states such that those states would head the list of the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates? I am not sure why you seem to think, without any apparent research by the way, that the pregnant teens would be mostly minorities. What underlying assumptions are you making here? You might find it interesting to know that in 2001 the percentage of white teens using no contraception at all was 12.3% while among blacks, the rate was 12.1% Blacks were actually slightly more responsible when it came to contraceptive use. Moreover, whites used the pill 25% of the time where blacks only used it 7.1% no doubt owing to the expense and difficulty of getting the pill. For the record, here are the ten states with the highest teen pregnancy rates for white teenagers from highest to next highest: Nevada, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kansas. Also for the record, that is 9 red states and only one blue and 8 of those states are also on the leader board for the highest rates regardless of race I listed in the first post. As it turns out, the states with the worst teen pregnancy rates are simply the states with the worst teen pregnancy rates and 9 of the 10 worst are red states. On a side note, data on black teenagers was not available in the following states because as it turns out, they had less than 1,000 female teens who are black: Vermont, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah. At least you can't claim that minority democrats in those states are skewing the data, they apparently don't have enough to form an adequate sampling. Unless pregnant black teenagers are somehow more worrisome than pregnant white teenagers, I see no reason to separate the data which is why I used the overall rates. I also don't see any reason to even want to find out if a pregnant teen, providing they were even old enough to vote, would vote for a democrat or a republican. Then again, I am just as concerned about pregnant teen republicans as I am about pregnant teen democrats. Maybe you could explain why that is an important difference to you?

Not dumb. Lustful, horny, randy and condomless apparently . Remember that in the post I talked about it seeming to be a good idea, that the goals were laudable and that it was unfortunate that it didn't work. I am not trying to take shots here. I just found the blue state/red state numbers surprising. I have no idea if the increased moral opprobrium against all things sexual in these areas correlates to high teen pregnancy rates. I don't think they are having sex any more often than blue state kids or are any less moral. There must be some other reason why they have consistently high pregnancy rates. It is an interesting issue to consider. I suspect that for political reasons the reports were delayed because the numbers were not good at all. The simple fact is that if they aren't working we ought to pull the plug. We are just wasting more money if we delay that decision for political reasons. By contrast, the best info I could find on condoms being available in schools which is what you always hear being complained of on the right, is that they are only available in around 400 or so schools and virtually all (91%) require parental consent. There is not a lot of data available on this but what is around indicates that they enjoy more success than these abstinence only plans Furstenburg, et al, Condom Availabilty One study showed that condom availability did not increase sexual activity but did increase condom use: Guttmacher, Condom Use-California Here is another study reaching the same conclusions comparing schools in NYC and Chicago: Condom Availablity I am not suggesting some sort of nationwide condom program for schools. I just think that schools that want to give that kind of thing a shot should not be ridiculed and mocked out because Rush Limbaugh on a slow news day can't find any other "look at those crazy liberals" stories to exaggerate and mischaracterize. It is one thing for a 16 year old to sit at the back of health class and snicker when they pull out a cucumber and a condom but adults should be past that. If your school decides to distribute condoms with parental consent and you give that consent for your kid, it would stand to reason that knowing how to put it on would be a good idea.

...or from their bisexual husbands or cheating wives.

Sorry, I forget that your attention span is so short and your reading skills so clearly rudimentary. Here is a shorter version for you: Evidence suggests that abstinence only programs don't work thus the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on them were a waste. Why don't you challenge the conclusions I drew by challenging the numbers upon which they are based? If you have some reason to believe that the CDC cooked these numbers or the States which have reported their results are lying to get themsleves in trouble for wasting cash, please show us the proof.

What exactly would be your rationale that leads you to conclude that a guy who has all the talent to be a star ends up a dud simply because his first start was delayed a year or two while he learned where his locker was? Favre sat his first year and would have sat his entire second year if not for an injury to Majkowski in the second game of the season. Montana sat for a season and a half. Young started for two awful years in Tampa and was just terrible. He then basically sat on the bench for the next 4 years in SF before becoming the starter. Waiting didn't seem to diminish the talent of any of these players.

Why doesn't that same logic apply to perserving veterans who will clearly be starting next year? The "logic" I am talking about is fielding a team now based on what is best for the team next year. If it is okay to have winning a game this year take a back seat to giving JP a start he hasn't earned with his play to enhance our chances next year, why isn't it okay to sit Fletcher, Spikes, Clements and Adams, etc, so that they don't get hurt and will be there to help us win next year? Why also wouldn't it make sense to throw the games so that our draft position is improved? How do you tell Fletcher that giving JP some learning time is more important than winning right now because we are out of the playoffs but keeping him from suffering a career ending injury in what you have determined is a meaningless game is not? Again, if you think JP gives us the best shot at winning right now, fine, otherwise I don't see how you figure that these games are worth throwing away to help JP but not worth throwing away to help our draft position or help our best players avoid off season surgeries.

As part of the 1996 welfare reform act, 50 million bucks was appropriated to fund state initiatives to promote abstinence as the only acceptable choice for teens. It sounded like a good idea at the time. Who could be against promoting abstinence for kids? Well, in the first 5 years of the program, all the states but California participated in the program. California was ahead of the curve and already had its own program in effect back in the early 1990's. By 1996 they had to admit that it was a failure and finally pulled the plug on this "feel-good", no pun intended, program. A report on the effect of these programs was due out last year but still has not been released. A final report on the effectiveness of these programs was to be out next summer but since the first report is already almost 2 years late, I imagine the final study will be delayed even further. How many here think that if the programs were successfull they wouldn't rush the numbers out asap? The program provides the the feds will put in $4 for every $3 the states kick in. Basically, that has drummed up around $90 million each year for these programs. Although a comprehensive report hasn't been issued yet, some states have released reports on how their programs are doing. Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Maryland, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri and Nebraska have published some data and of course, we can see how California did in their own program. Four of those ten reported increased sexual activity comparing pre- and post program levels. Three more concluded that there was no impact on sexual activity and three more had reported no data on this issue. Basically 7 show no effect or things actually getting worse and 3 have not reported. The CDC's most recent study on teen pregnancy, including those terminated by abortion covered four years, from 1992-1995. This is before the abstinence program started which was much later. The study already showed decreasing rates across the board which was a relief. Interestingly, the ten states with the highest rates in the last year of the study are, from highest to lowest: Nevada, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, NY, Ten, and Arkansas (aren't those all "red" states besides NY?). The states with the lowest rates were, from lowest to highest: ND, Minnesota, Wyoming, Utah, Maine, Wisconsin, SD, Idaho, Vermont and Pennsylvania (I think the red-blue is 5-5 there, a dead heat). The ten states with the best reduction over the period of the study are: Vermont, Wisconsin, Conn, Pa, SD, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota (the blues take that one 6-4). CDC Teen Pregnancy Rates As laudable as an abstinence only program may sound, it looks like states were lowering rates without this expensive program. Even worse it looks more and more like these programs are just another big waste of money by state and local governments. The report is being delayed, a good sign that it has nothing good to report and the numbers we do have are pretty bad. Of course, what is a few hundred million here or there wasted? It just shows you that the Republican elite can just as happily waste money on ill conceived social engineering projects as well meaning liberals. What I would like to see is who did each state hire to establish and run these things and who was passing out those plum jobs?

Angelina Jolie is not just a lunatic with a pretty face. She can act. Emma Thompson might not have been born in America but she is a great actress. Kate Winslet is great although I think her range is limited.

"No question that Losman is the quarterback of the future..." ??????? hmmmmmmm. I totally disagree with that statement based on the fact that none of us, Sal included, have any idea if this guy can play and until we do, we don't know if he is the QB of the future or the biggest bust in the history of the franchise. We are planning for him to be our QB of the future, that much is certain but whether or not he actually is, no one knows. We once planned for Todd Collins to be our QB of the future but that never happened, did it? We once planned for RJ to be our QB of the future and that never happened, did it? Fact is, whether or not JP is the QB of the future for this team is not only a question, it is the question for the next year or two. I agree that next year, this is likely JP's team, at least unless he is soundly thrashed by whatever QBs are on the roster next year in camp, even if it is Bledsoe doing the thrashing. Otherwise, he will get the benefit of the doubt and the starting job. What I disagree with is the idea that we should turn our remaining games into an extension of next year's preseason schedule by starting anything less than our best 11. There will be plenty of opportunities for JP to learn in camp next year without cashing in our chips for 5 games just because we aren't in the playoffs. This is the regular season, not training camp.

If you think starting JP gives us the best chance at winning a game, fine, I have no problem with you or anyone advocating that he start. If you think that Drew gives us the best chance of winning but want to start JP anyway, I do have a problem with that kind of thinking. Why should any of those returning veterans care about winning a game we don't care enough about to start our best 11? You are the one advocating starting JP even if he does not give us the best chance of winning now inorder to better prepare for next year once we are out of the playoffs. Why do you limit the application of that reasoning to just JP? Wouldn't throwing the rest of the games improve our draft position so we can land better players in the draft and have a better shot at the playoffs next year? Wouldn't resting the veterans who we know are coming back anyway make sense? Why risk injury to a guy you know you need to start next year? Beating the Steelers will be hard enough without handicapping the team by starting a guy who hasn't earned a start by outperforming the starter in practice. I don't know why my position is so radical. Simply stated, the coaches should start whoever they think are the best 11 guys on the field because that is how you win football games and, last I checked, that is the goal every Sunday. I am willing to bet that there isn't a player in that locker room that would respect a decision to start someone who wasn't the best at their position because the fans need something to keep them interested once the playoffs are not a possibility because winning alone isn't interesting enough.

That is why I voted for JK, I thought he could do a better job than GW, simple as that. My opinon of both was not all that high. Here the question is simple, if MM thinks JP gives us the best chance of winning a game then by all means, start him. If he doesn't, then he should be on the bench. This isn't training camp. People are intellectualizing a game that is played more on emotion, courage, focus and attitude than on brains. Jim Kelly wasn't the smartest QB to ever play the game but he was likely the toughest and never gave up on a play, a game or a season. Thurman Thomas was no football prodigy but he was one ornery, irascible, never-say-die SOB. You play to win, all the time. You don't throw a round based on some hare-brained scheme to win some other fight sometime in the future. How would you like to be in a foxhole with a guy that wants to surrender without a fight just because he can't win the whole damn war in one skirmish or to rest himself for the next war?

On that theory, why not rest all the veterans to avoid injuries that would ruin our chances to win next year? Why not throw the games we have left so our second round pick is higher? You don't think that beating the Steelers last game of the season, arguably the best team in the league, would help the team attitude wise in the off season and going into next year? These are human beings, not cars you winter in the garage and just turn the key next summer to watch them fire up as if they didn't sit around for months doing nothing. These guys need to win as much as possible even if it doesn't matter as far as making the playoffs is concerned. They have pride, they want to believe they are going to be better next year. You don't achieve that by mailing it in once the playoff drive is over.

Must be some as yet unidentified atmospheric disturbance altering the space-time continuum.

What is all this nancy-boy weeping and smarty-pants theorizing about "if we don't make the playoffs start JP" stuff dominating the board? The Bills fans I used to know showed up in snow storms to root for their guys no matter what their record was or their playoff prospects because they liked to see a tough team playing to win a tough game in a tough town. Now what I hear is all this cleverness about getting JP ready for next year, to "develop" him once we can't make the playoffs. Whatever happened to winning just to win? Whatever happened to pride? Whatever happened to wanting to just kick the ever loving !$!@#$ out of the other guy because that is what football is about? "But Mickey" you say, "we aren't *sniff*, *sniff*, going to the playoffs, waaaaaaaaa, why not get ready for next year, waaaaaaaaa". On the theory that since we won't make the playoffs our time is better spent getting ready for next year, why not throw in the towel on the remaining games to improve our draft position for next year? Why not rest every single veteran of any worth to avoid any injuries that could lose us a player for next year? If you think JP gives us a better chance to win right now and want him on the field for that reason, fine, I have no argument with you though I disagree. If you agree that right now he does not give us the best chance to win but should be on the field anyway to "develop" him for next year, I think you should seriously consider rooting for a team that is used to fair weather fans who shrivel up and turn to jelly at the first sign of adversity. The Dolphins, for example, are used to those kinds of fans and you would fit right in. The Bills fans I used to know liked to kick a$$ just for the pure pleasure of kicking a$$ even it wasn't for the greater good of making the playoffs because in the end, winning, all on its own, matters. If we are elimenated from the playoffs, I would like the team and its fans to have the same attitude against its remaining opponents as Captain Ahab had: From hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.

So, are we starting training camp for 2005 in December 2004? Camp is free, I paid good money for my 4 season tickets. I want a refund for the last two home games if they are going to make it into an early start for camp. If they think JP gives them the best chance of winning a game now then fine, he should start. Otherwise start the guy they do think gives them the best chance of winning. I am tired of all this crying about the playoffs. What about pride? What about winning just for the sake of winning? Man, I remember when Wade said we were out of it before the end of the season and he was ripped a new one. Now it is all the rage. Yeah, lets quit this season before it is over just so we can get JP out of diapers. Why stop there? Why not throw the rest of the games to improve the quality of our second round pick? Gee, isn't that the smart thing to do rather than trying to win games when you can't make the blessed playoffs?

I disagree. This isn't training camp. You don't send veterans out there like Jonas Jennings and ask him to risk a career ending injury to win a football game we don't care enough about winning to start the guy who gives us the best shot at winning that game. If MM thinks JP gives us a better shot at winning right now then fine, start him. If not, Drew starts. No one should be out on that field during the regular season for any reason other than they are the best at their position. Besides, we are not going to do ourselves or JP any favors by handing him a start he didn't earn only to watch the team disintegrate as would be expected of a team everyone, fans included, has given up on. To me, winning matters and I don't care if we are going in to a game 0 and 10, I want to beat the living !$#!@# out of the !#$!@#$!#'s on the other side of the line of scrimmage. Training camp is free, if they want to refund the 4 season tickets I have for the next two games, then fine, I'll watch them start the 2005 training camp in December of 2004. Otherwise, I want the best guys on the field. If that includes JP, I'll accept MM's judgment on that. However, if Drew is the best QB in the locker room right now and apparently in MM's judgment he is, then he is the guy.

Its like he is the only QB to ever throw a pick. He ticks people off more when they win than when they lose. Can you imagine what would happen if somehow they actually make the playoffs? Even if they just missed by one game, how do you hand over the team next year without even any competition to a guy who spent the last 3 months modeling track suits on the sideline and putting the whirlpool through its paces? Here we have a guy who has struggled yes but with lousy coaching, suspect offensive schemes and an offensive line from the discount shelf at Walmart. No matter how you slice it, Drew Bledsoe knows the game, he knows the ropes, he has been there and done that. He has seen it all, good, bad and ugly. If he gets you that close to the playoffs, how do you just ship him off hoping that JP is not a bust? I think you bring Drew back if the price is reasonable and you let their play on the field decide the issue. I know, that is not a popular position these days where apparently we are supposed to just decide that so and so is the future and hand him one of the most coveted jobs there is, NFL quarterback. Am I the only one who thinks you earn a starting job?

Well, why didn't we just cash it in from day one and use the whole season to "develop" our youth since it was pretty clear from the start that we were not a playoff team. A little thing like actually playing the games was a mere formality. Heck, at 0-4 we should have rested Moulds, Williams, Jennings, Campbell, Clements, Fletcher, Spikes and numerous others so that we didn't risk a catastrophic injury costing us that player for next year. At that point the playoffs were a pipe dream anyway. Right? This is the NFL. It is the regular season. You play to win, period. This is not training camp, it is not the "screw everyone including fans who actually like to see the team win even if they aren't going to the Super Bowl just so we can give one guy some reps" part of the season. JP Losman isn't the only guy on this team. Maybe you have given up but they haven't. He is recovering from an injury and several months of carrying a clip board. He is so not ready to be on the field it isn't even funny. If you want to get him killed, lose games, cause the team to hate his guts and cash in our chips with 5 games left at 5-6, go ahead, put him in to "develop".

This is the regular season, not training camp. I am not paying to watch somebody practice. I am paying to see them play football games. I am not ready to turn over the entire team to some guy who has spent the better part of the season in a track suit fetching Gatorade, not when we are 5-6 with 5 games left. How do you look any player on the team in the face and tell him to risk injury and work his butt off on the field while you care so little about actually winning you are going to put in a guy at QB for the sake of "developing" him for next year? The only reason anyone should be on the field in a game is because he is the best at his position. Period.

It would be a great start if what you are hoping to achieve is to prevent any case from ever getting started unless it was a 100% slam dunk from the git-go. Malpractice cases are decided by juries, you know, the same people who let OJ go. Believe it or not, they make mistakes. The thing is, people like to think that all cases are either 100% winners or completely frivolous. Truth is, 99% of the cases fall somewhere in between. If there were no doubts about whether or not the Doctor was at fault, we wouldn't need juries. The whole reason we need them is to decide close cases. Why should anyone be punished for a close case that was barely won or lost by one side or the other? The "loser pays" rules I have seen proposed most often are that in name only. In effect they are "plaintiff pays if he loses" and "Defendant does not pay if he loses". Loser pays only if the loser is the plaintiff. Litigation is so expensive and time consuming as it is, no lawyer worth his salt is going to take a ridiculous case. He ends up losing sooner or later anyway and all that time and money is gone. You take cases you can win.

>crickets<

I don't think he has the size of Frank Lewis, maybe Jerry Butler or Marlin Briscoe?

This may just sound like crazy talk but here it is all the same: maybe, just maybe we ought to let Mularkey decide who is the best QB for this team on the wacky theory that having observed both Drew and JP up close in practice and endless film sessions he just might theoretically know better than we do who should start and when.