ComradeKayAdams

Yes, unequivocally: the prevention of a cluster of cells from developing into a child, when intentionally done against a mother’s consent by another human, should be considered murder. This is my personal answer for what I believe to be true, in principle, as well as what I think should be true legally. But once again…intent can often be hard to prove in a court of law, so I would expect most successful charges to end up less punitive than murder charges…especially when the mother isn’t visibly pregnant. You seem to be looking for a “2+2=4” type of answer on this general topic, Buffarukus, but all that I can offer you is a “wave-particle duality of light” type of answer. Let me try explaining myself this way… 1. A scientific perspective: Human life begins at conception. 2. A philosophical perspective: Human life begins at the first sign of brain activity (~8 weeks into pregnancy). 3. An ideal legal perspective: Human life begins whenever the mother says it does, up to the point of birth. 4. A practical/social contract perspective: Human life begins somewhere in the second trimester, with certain agreed-upon exceptions (essentially the Roe v. Wade standard…but preferably the general European standard of up to 15 weeks or with approvals from medical professionals). 5. A private/personal perspective: Life begins at the nebulous gestational limit where I could no longer live with myself for having had the abortion. I believe all the aforementioned to be true, just like I believe light is both a fundamental particle and a wave. How you analytically treat light depends on the particular circumstances in which you make observations of the light. Similarly, how we approach the definition of human life depends on our frame of reference, with each frame of reference valid in its own domain of inquiry. Let’s try working with another analogy: veganism. I believe it is unethical to treat sentient life like food, unless it’s done out of genuine necessity. Does that mean I think meat consumption should be made illegal? NO!! It is my job, as a vegan activist, to persuade you to willingly choose not to eat meat using whatever perspective (animal rights, environmentalism, healthy diet, etc.) I feel is compelling. I fully understand that eating animal meat is inherently different than, say, cannibalism. I feel the same way about abortion. I can persuade other women to reconsider it: maybe I could tell them about their adoption options, mention examples of successful adults who were almost aborted, or even show them graphic images of aborted fetuses. It is NOT my right, however, to use the legal system to physically force nine months of pregnancy and childbirth on another woman…especially when I don’t know her physical, emotional, financial, career, or family circumstances. The question of life is inherently less clear for a fetus than, say, a crawling toddler. I’m sorry if my responses aren’t helpful. If you’re still uncomfortable with dualities, then try considering this more pragmatic point of view: women important to you in your personal life, encountering situations in which they might resort to seeking out dangerous “back-alley abortions.” How do these thought experiments affect your public policy stances? Because as you probably know by now, we women can be extraordinarily willful…

Ok, there’s a lot here, but I’ll try to address it all (WARNING: likely gonna be super long)… Intent in criminal cases: It’s probably not a good use of our time to analyze every esoteric criminal scenario involving a pregnant woman. Let’s leave that up to prosecutors and defenders to prove or disprove intent. Suffice to say, I think the concept of a fetus potentially having “living person” status in criminal court cases is perfectly valid because, among many other examples, it serves as a deterrent for angry fathers physically assaulting pregnant mothers in order to avoid fatherhood. Father’s rights: While I do empathize greatly with all potential fathers who want to become a parent when the potential mother does not, those who must biologically take on the entire physical burden of pregnancy should also have the entire benefit of choice. I would advise all men to avoid these situations as best as they can by improving communication with their partners and also by elevating their character standards during the partner selection process. Abortion debate: For what it’s worth, I am privately much more on the pro-life spectrum, yet fully in support of legal abortion up to birth as a PUBLIC POLICY. Make sure you understand my distinction. I’m also very much open to second-trimester compromises if the exception-granting process is well-articulated in the abortion legislation. My full reasoning, in a hopefully easy-to-read outline form… 1. The rape exception: No victim of rape, at any point of the pregnancy, should ever be forced against her will to give birth to the rapist’s baby. Arguing otherwise is sociopathic and reveals a gross ignorance of what rape trauma fully entails. And for the sake of logical consistency, the obvious corollary to this belief is that a fetus therefore inherently falls into a category of “maybe not quite a person” because we would never otherwise allow a person to determine the life or death of another if it’s not a situation of self-defense (capital punishment debate notwithstanding). 2. Exception-granting dilemmas: I trust the medical professional community to evaluate abortion exceptions way more than I do the legal system. This is effectively the policy standard of many European countries, where an official note from a doctor or a therapist is sufficient qualification. By circumventing the often arduous and broken American legal system, legally unrestricted abortion access essentially expedites quality service of what is a major medical procedure and prioritizes the mother’s health. And it’s easy to imagine how legal requirements might lead to situations ranging from prohibitive to life-threatening. Abortion doctors will want to avoid risks of criminal prosecution and bankrupting-inducing legal challenges due to their own diagnoses (physical health of the mother, ectopic pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, fetal viability, miscarriages, dilation/curettage procedures, dilation/evacuation procedures, etc.). In cases of rape and i n c e s t, sometimes women and girls must also deal with intimidation from partners or family members, public shaming, prosecutorial red tape, and lengthy trials (in addition to all the emotional trauma) if the legal system gets involved. While it’s highly preferable that these victims charge their culprits with a crime, they also shouldn’t be forced to do so. 3. Other valid exceptions: There are numerous ones outside Trump’s big 3 (rape, i n c e s t, life of mother) that politicians commonly omit from political conversations or haphazardly address in legislation language. Lengthy abortion waiting lists, circumstances of insufficient contraceptive access, cryptic pregnancies from irregular periods or amenorrhea, and mental health crises of the mother are among the ones that I feel demand equally serious consideration. 4. Statistical reality: ~90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester, ~96% are performed by Trump’s proposed deadline of 16 weeks, and virtually all of the remaining ~4% of cases qualify for any of the exceptions I’ve already mentioned above. So it’s blatant pro-life propaganda whenever someone claims the existence of an American scourge of “YOLO…whatevs!” jezebels whimsically having late-term abortions. 5. Political mendacity: Conservatives insisted that five decades of judicial precedent wouldn’t be overturned, but then Roe v. Wade was overturned and celebrated. They’ve argued that abortion should be a decision left up to the states, and now they’re pushing a federal ban. Trump reneges on his public statements that female abortion seekers should face “some form of criminal punishment,” but then he glad-hands with far-right donors and creepy Christian nationalists like Mike Johnson. Since Trump is not legally bound to his speciously “centrist” legislation proposal on the campaign trail, Democrats and independents should not trust him to handle this topic in good faith. 6. Moral prioritization hierarchies: I don’t see conservatives too concerned about, say, “welfare babies” or school shooting victims or Gazan children or any fetus, for that matter, immediately after birth. At a very primitive and subconscious level, the pro-life movement is about the control of female sexual autonomy and not about any principled respect for innocent life. People of my ilk, meanwhile, prioritize mothers and the autonomously living.

I’m not a legal expert, but I assume intent is everything. If intent can be proven in a court of law, then case resolution is typically a fast formality. If you can prove the assailant intended to terminate the fetus and that the mother intended to carry the fetus to birth, then I believe that crime is considered unequivocally murder. And if you’re asking me whether I personally agree with that logic, then my answer is “yes.” Now if you’re asking me whether I believe a mother’s intent to give birth is the only factor that should bestow a fetus “life” status, in the legal (i.e., not scientific or philosophical) sense of the word, then my answer is also “yes.” Stated another way, I do support legal abortion theoretically up to birth. You explicitly said you’re not looking for a debate, so I won’t go any further. I’ve defended my abortion stance a few times before in this forum, however, and will do it again if anyone wants me to do so? It’s an important topic and one that is unfortunately very poorly debated here.

They are 4-16-4 following a win (1-9-1 at home, 3-7-3 away) and 20-10 following a loss (11-6 at home, 9-4 away). This consistent inconsistency, to me, is further evidence of a coaching staff and a veteran leadership core (namely: Okposo and Girgensons) that need to be replaced this offseason. However…I’m not nearly as depressed as most Sabres fans are regarding the future. Levi, UPL, Dahlin, Power, Thompson, Cozens, Mitts, Quinn, Peterka, Tuch, and Benson are still a promising young core. Samuelsson, Jokiharju, Ryan Johnson, Krebs, and Greenway are still intriguing complementary pieces. Savoie, Kulich, Ostlund, Rosen, Wahlberg, Poltapov, Strbak, and Novikov are still quality prospects. I just named…24 people! So yeah…I refuse to wallow in misery. 13 straight seasons without playoffs is horrible, but it can end at 13 with the right head coach and a few gritty vets who know how much hard work it takes to succeed in the NHL.

Your data precision demands are nonsensical. We do lose temporal resolution and eventually all sense of WEATHER as we continue looking back in time, but we still have enough detail of the global CLIMATE to see all its pertinent trends. What happens is that many different sources of climate evidence (ice core air bubbles, tree rings, oceanic/terrestrial sediments, coral reefs, sea sponges, glacial isotope ratios, isotope ratios in flora/fauna/microorganism fossils, etc.) obtained from many different locations on the earth converge and overlap to tell approximately the same climate story. This data congruence is what gives climatologists their confidence. New data continues coming in and continues refining the records, but so far the holistic climate paradigm has yet to be even remotely perturbed…let alone overturned. I still can’t tell from your posts if you properly understand the difference between weather and climate?? Think back to that scatterplot of temperature (vertical axis, in degrees Celsius) versus time (horizontal axis, in years). Each dot represents an annual global mean surface temperature (simply constructed like this: take one location, average its temperature over every day and night of every season in a year, do the same for many other evenly distributed locations across the earth, and then find the average of all these averages). Think of this dot as a global WEATHER average for each year. So the dot-to-dot connecting lines represent the changing WEATHER, while the scatterplot’s nonlinear regression line fit is the changing CLIMATE. The maxes and mins of the weather oscillations can be severe and can be completely natural in origin (solar activity variation, wildfires, volcanoes, ocean current variation, etc.). We mostly care about the trajectory of the nonlinear regression line (representing earth’s input/output energy balance), which changes comparatively slower. Some of the pre-Industrial Revolution sources of climate evidence that I listed above can also provide seasonal weather data, but aside from interesting max/min results, it’s each of their climate regression lines we care most about because these are modeling the trapped energy from the sun. And as they say: if all these regression lines fit, you must not quit (climate science)!! While we’re thinking graphically…think about another important scatterplot: carbon dioxide (vertical axis, in ppm…parts-per-million) versus time (horizontal axis, in years). Thanks to all those ice core air bubbles, we have really good data that goes back 750k+ years. We see nothing above 300 ppm in the entirety of the previous 750k years, ~280 ppm in 1750, then a crossing of 350 ppm in the late 1980’s, and a crossing of 420 ppm last year. So that’s a very sudden and steep incline in this plot to match the sudden and steep incline of the regression line in the aforementioned temperature plot. When you overlay these data plots that can go back hundreds of thousands of years, you see temperature lagging slightly behind carbon dioxide emission in an apparent correlated relationship. Based on our knowledge of greenhouse gases (known since the mid-1800’s), it makes sense that this relationship is causal and behaviorally representative of a positive climate feedback loop. But if you have any different explanation of the most recent spikes in these plots, please let us know! L Ron, Tibsy, and I met in a dark smoke-filled room and decided to relax the standard of a peer-reviewed scientific research paper. Just give us ONE idea of what’s happening in these plots that is not an anthropogenic explanation. If you don’t have a persuasive theory of your own, then don’t blame us if we choose to stick with the scientific consensus.

‘Tis true. Bills Mafia’s best and drunkest were sacrifices to The Pit. But it was a far, far better thing that they did than we have ever done. It was a far, far better rest that they went to than we have ever known. ‘Twas surely a baffling decree of the Pro Football Gods of Buffalo, opaque as they sometimes appear to us mortals, as it left behind only the teetotalers and AA members and designated drivers and other assorted behavioral degenerates. Perhaps this was how Highmark tailgating was supposed to end, not with an inebriated bang but rather a sober whisper? Perhaps not. The Pit, that which paints a rather exquisitely vaginal visage on the Orchard Park landscape, shall soon give birth to a new generation of outdoor pro football in Western New York. And those cad-like Pro Football Gods of Buffalo, with their own whispering winds off the curiously Billdo-shaped Lake Erie, whisper more than sweet nothings and desultory Lombardi promises into the ears of ruddy throngs of despondent Bills Mafia soldatos. “Curses thee! Our drunken dreams shall be never more,” quoth the soldatos toward the sky after yet another embarrassing home playoff loss. Oh, but witness those deified Lake Erie winds traverse the lips of The Pit, filling its internal contours, and then engorging the air with debris…our fatherly fertilizers of hope, with a dirty dusty harbinger of what is to come! Hope for new drunkards, of new drinking experiences, in new parking lots??? Yes, indeed, I dare say! New opportunities to vomit all over one’s jersey. To saturate one’s own Zubaz pants with one’s own urine. To verbally chastise an opposing fan. To then physically assault that same fan. To indiscreetly perform a special service between two parked cars for a rather unexceptional Kiko Alonso jersey. And as a late morning pre-kickoff coup de grace, to then collapse headfirst into a burning folding table. Same batsh!t decadence. Different batsh!t parking lot, at least. <<< Narrator: a tipsy ComradeKayAdams gently lays down her glass of not quite Merlot on the coffee table. She sighs and then PASSES THE F%*K OUT on this boring Sunday afternoon. Her outstretched arm slowly graces a small nearby collection of classic literature books, plus a grocery store romance novel embarrassingly purchased on a whim, all of which are partly concealed with Mel Kiper scouting report printouts. Seven more months until football season… >>>

<< Patrick Stewart facepalm meme >> Ugh…this sub-forum…I swear… Your Mark Kaufman article made NO SUCH CLAIM regarding the planet’s entire climate history! The domain of inquiry was only restricted to the most recent 150 years since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The coldest recorded years are clustered around the beginning of the time domain, while the hottest recorded years are clustered around the end of the time domain. If the planet wasn’t systematically warming, we might expect a more even and random distribution. Your Daily Mail article (LOL…) is 12 years old. I see how conveniently omitting data from the most recent decade helps further your flimsy narrative. When we seek out the facts for ourselves, as you insisted, we find that global annual mean surface temperatures have risen 0.63 degrees Celsius between 1880 and 1997, another 0.19 degrees Celsius between 1997 and 2012, and then a whopping 0.52 degrees Celsius between 2012 and last year. So things seem “relatively” more stable between 1997 and 2012 when you zoom into the scatterplot of temperature versus time, but then you can see the obvious positive correlation and a steep imaginary regression line when you zoom out between 1880 and last year. Statistical thermodynamic variation can explain the localized scatterplot bumps, but so far only an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is scientifically able to explain the underlying regression line pattern that we see. What’s so amusing, L Ron, is that there ARE peer-reviewed scientific research papers challenging anthropogenic climate change! Right-wing denialists are simply too lazy to seek them out in the more obscure science journals. The papers tend to be poorly cited, however, and most have already been debunked. Occasionally you’ll still see a tired conspiracy claim (urban heat islands, underwater volcanoes, etc.) that was derived from one of these papers and which makes a recycled return to various right-wing arenas of dastardly, dullardly, denialist discourse (such as this sub-forum!). Another amusing observation to me is the manner in which climate conspiracists believe actual science is performed. It’s practically impossible for blatantly poor/falsified science to persist in an international science community for multiple decades. You can have slowed scientific progress from groupthink, of course, but not nearly to the extent that the conspiracists postulate. What also greatly complicates the right-wing climate conspiracy is the fact that the global community of civil engineers and naval military personnel, among many other occupations, depend heavily on accurate climate data and climate forecasting to do their jobs. I also want to address climate modeling because I’m seeing a lot of misinformed opinions on them here. Since I’m running out of time this morning, I’ll have to be super brief: 1. Climate modeling validity: computational science has become ubiquitous throughout all STEM fields (and other fields too). It’s just another tool, like statistics or math or any type of scientific diagnostic equipment. Any subject that deals with physics and differential equations and things like feedback control systems (i.e., like climatology) is probably going to make heavy use of this tool. Science experimentalists and science theorists alike use computer modeling. Probably the most famous example of computer modeling success: particle physics phenomenologists using it to help predict and discover new fundamental particles in accelerators. 2. Climate model accuracy: Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS is a great first read on this issue, certainly better than any random pro football message board political sub-forum user. 3. Difference between weather modeling and climate modeling: this is actually a very good question raised from the skeptical crowd! It’s nearly possible to explain properly without multiple paragraphs, but I can say that one big reason why climate modeling has better potential for accuracy than weather modeling is due to the differences in objectives. The former must only worry about thermodynamic state averages, while the latter demands a comparatively high degree of temporally dependent thermodynamic precision despite the inherently chaotic nature of statistical mechanics and fluid mechanics. Another big reason is the large discrepancy between the number of restraining boundary conditions/initial value conditions available for application to each respective model’s governing set of equations. There are also major differences in the input variables, the characterizing physics equations, data sizes, etc… Ugh…is this paragraph making sense to anyone?? Meh…eff it. Hit “submit,” Kay, aaaaand...she’s out.

With all due respect, Sherpa, you still didn’t answer my questions. I’ll post them again here: 1. Once Hamas is sufficiently “defeated,” does Israel plan on helping the Palestinians rebuild their homes and return to their normal daily lives in Gaza? And if Israel doesn’t cooperate in doing so, would you consider that a grievous problem? 2. What are Israel’s short-term and long-term plans for ensuring that the humanitarian needs (food, water, shelter, health care, etc.) of Gazans are met, particularly as they are confined in Rafah? I’m making a strong claim that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza, but I’m also trying to give you every opportunity to refute such a claim. I already explained why I chose my words in a previous post. I do agree with you, however, on the importance of language precision. That is why I’m amending my “carpet bombing” phrase to a more Bidenesque “over-the-top bombing” phrase. International humanitarian organizations agree with me on the accuracy of this characterization. The IDF doesn’t, of course, but they’re not exactly impartial here. Surely you are aware of the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism?? And while we’re playing around with labels…can I call anyone not empathetic to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Gazans a sociopath and an Islamophobe?

Oh, no offense taken. I’m not a military expert. But can you address the rest of my post? You seem to be dodging my concerns of ethnic cleansing and genocide. You come across as someone disturbingly comfortable with the official war crime of collective punishment. Or perhaps I’m being unfair with that accusation?? This is your opportunity to clarify your stance on the Gazan plight. Would you be more comfortable with the phrase, “over-the-top bombing,” Pokey-balls??

If you look at current bombed building maps of Gaza, you’ll see that Jabalia and Gaza City and Khan Yunis are completely saturated with red (when each tiny red dot depicts a bombed building). Rafah is already rapidly getting to that same saturation state. From a current bird’s-eye view, the cumulative damage resembles carpet bombing and not the consequences of tactical warfare. The displaced Gazan residents have nothing to return to…which begs the question: what is the plan for them once this conflict is resolved? Is Israel going to rebuild their homes?? Or will they have to live somewhere else? Similarly, as the assault on Rafah advances and UNWRA suspensions persist, what is to be done regarding the short-term and long-term food/water/clothing/shelter/health care needs of Gazans? About 2 million Palestinians live in Gaza. I’m not familiar with any argument where the Gazan population of Palestinians isn’t large enough to qualify as “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide.” I’m using the same definitions of these words as the United Nations.

But again…what does it mean to “eliminate Hamas,” exactly? Is there a list of top names whom the IDF needs to assassinate? A percentage of members from some official Hamas roster that need to be killed? And are these IDF tactics on the urban Gaza battlefield anything close to optimal?? Both the number (30,500+) and the percentage (~87%) of civilian casualties are ridiculously high (source: Euro-Med HRM, February 3 report). Many of the hostages have even perished due to the carpet bombing. And what is this lengthy siege on Gaza doing for future Hamas recruitment?? Or for the long-term security of Israeli citizens abroad, for that matter? Or for Israel’s diplomatic standing in the world? Or for their economic vitality? So it’s clearly in the best interest of Israel to bring this conflict to a swift conclusion. However, it’s also difficult to bring a mission to a conclusion if the mission objectives aren’t clearly defined! Then again…maybe the mission objectives were clear all along? Maybe the intent was land seizure and eventual Israeli citizen settlement of Gaza, with the hope that the concerned international community would take in all the Palestinian refugees? None of you here, after all, challenged me on my accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Please stop with these ridiculous insinuations of anti-Semitism. They are never get-out-of-jail-free cards for ethnic cleansing and genocide. The purpose of protesting is to effect change. What good does protesting Putin do? Do you think he cares what the outside world thinks? The United States and Israel are democracies that, in theory at least, are responsive to their respective citizenry (in practice, admittedly, the U.S. functions as a corporate oligarchy while Israel is a satellite state of American imperialism that helps it maintain Middle Eastern hegemony).

THANK YOU. I’ve requested the same from them throughout the past few years: ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific research paper, published since the late 1980’s, that does either of the following: 1. Contradicts the observed planetary warming phenomena. 2. Explains the observed planetary warming phenomena with any primary mechanism other than the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm. Their collective response? Crickets. But the offer still stands! I will look up the paper, read it over a weekend, and then get back to PPP to carefully explain why their paper of persuasion is total garbage (if the paper’s focus is on climate system computational models, then I’ll likely need at least an additional weekend to get access to and delve into some of the weeds of the code). Regarding allegedly poor timeline predictions: keep in mind that anthropogenic climate change denialists like to misattribute reckless claims to climate scientists, when those claims actually came from celebrities or politicians. When climate scientists speak in terms of predictive ranges with a possible minimum and a possible maximum, denialists will commonly grab the most sensationalistic limit and call it a firm prediction without any scientific context. When it comes to climate computational models that attempt to predict the future, this “scientific context” typically comes in the form of inherent uncertainty from factors like cloud cover or worldwide legislative measures that reduce various air pollutants. The climate models favored by NASA GISS, unfortunately, have been very accurate since the 1990’s. Scanning the last few pages of this thread…ugh…it’s more of the usual right-wing lunacy that keeps popping up…not understanding the difference between weather and climate, not understanding why warmer climates equate to greater weather variation, equating an established science of well over half a century with the real-time scientific predictions of an emerging pandemic…even the anthropogenic nature of the Holocene epoch extinction is apparently a liberal conspiracy…WTF…our country’s middle school science program is failing us!! Irv!! It used to say “Moderator” for your profile location. Did they take away your PPP moderating powers??!! Effing COMMUNISTS.

Yes! Israel should negotiate with the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, at the behest of (and collaboration with) the United States and the global community. Israel’s response to 10/7 has advanced way beyond self-defense and has now firmly entered the category of “ethnic cleansing.” As famine spreads, the category of “genocide” will become apt (if it isn’t already). What defines an actionable “victory” over Hamas, anyway? That has never been made clear to anyone…curiously enough. What Israel’s far-right government leaders have unfortunately made crystal clear is that a two-state (and presumably also a one-state) solution is off the table. Therefore, the United States should respond by cutting off all aid and participating in an international BDS movement until Israel accedes. Posterity is looking down upon us all, with great disdain, for our collective moral turpitude and cowardice regarding the plight of the Gazans…only three generations removed from the Holocaust, no less! If you’re a religious person, you have to figure that God isn’t too happy with us all right now, either.

Hondo, I think what makes Bills Mafia special comes down to three components: 1. The team is our “us-against-the-world” rallying cry: Buffalo’s prime location in the unforgiving North American Snowbelt is certainly part of it, as is the Rust Belt economic collapse from American de-industrialization, living in the shadow of two cosmopolitan centers like NYC and Toronto, existing in a pro sports landscape that will always favor big markets, and of course the accrued memories of heartbreaking football that we share together. 2. That “City of Good Neighbors” mentality: For whatever reason, people in the Midwest and in Canada are known for their friendliness. Since Buffalo sits at the periphery of both geographical regions, maybe this partly explains why we donate so much to player charities and treat opposing fans politely during tailgates? We are also geographically Northeast, however…so we’re still known to throw insults and beers and snowballs and Billdos at the opposing team like Massholes, Jests fans, or Philadelphians… 3. Buffalo’s blue-collar heritage: A lot of people forget that Western NY was part of the region known as the “Cradle of Pro Football.” Western Pennsylvania and the state of Ohio are much more well-known for their roles in the sport’s formation, but names like Tommy Hughitt and Leo Lyons are not to be forgotten! So why did pro football first blossom in this region and not in others? Well, what helped was that this region was predominantly working-class. Back then, working-class people were known to prefer the physicality of the sport of football (as opposed to, say, baseball) and resonated more with the professional variant that wasn’t affiliated with colleges. Football is also a war-like game of territorial conquest, which is quintessentially American…more so than other sports…and anything uniquely American also tended to resonate more with the working class. And so this blue-collar Buffalonian love for pro football carried on, even as the demographic composition of the region changed over the years. The 1946-49 AAFC Bills had some of the very best attendance figures in that league, as did the Bills during their formative AFL years. I would also be remiss not to mention “Banditland,” which is by far the most rabid pro lacrosse fanbase in the world. Oh, and the fact that the Buffalo Sabres have ANYBODY still attending their games after these past 13 seasons is a testament to this team’s fan strength. During the Bills’ offseason, Buffalo apparently still very much enjoys its pro contact sports!

Uh…not me, at least!!! I’m submitting a favorable review of the OP’s design for both Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar: Take a simple sartorial spin on the classic red, white, and royal blue. Like the timeless “little black dress,” this quintessential “big black jersey” imbues Bills Mafia’s collective wardrobe with a dash of vivacious versatility and ethereal elegance. Audrey Hepburn meets Bills Elvis Guy, if you will. On a jaunt to Wegmans? Pair this jersey with your favorite Zubaz yoga comfort pants, if you must. On a hot date to the AKG Art Museum with Johnny McDimples? Complement an oversized jersey dress version with some sassy knee-highs, if you dare. Do you happen to be an obese omnivore whose self-discipline is as low as your ethical regard for all of God’s sentient creatures? If so, then forego a major eating disorder commitment and instead enjoy the slimming effect of this dark-hued jersey, as you waddle through the tailgate parking lot together with your fellow football faithful fatties, like a herd of corpulent bison in the night, or through Highmark Stadium seating rows like blood traversing restricted arteries after years of gluttonous chicken wing consumption. Or perhaps your clothing preferences transcend the practical into the symbolic? Why not make a gothic statement with your apparel and commemorate the many tragedies of Buffalo pro football with a black alternative jersey? No makeup brand or makeup color can make the tincture of slit wrist scar tissue pop quite like this decadent ebony alternative, as you showcase to the world your sullen side because your favorite football team never achieved its ultimate gridiron glory. Atone for every one of the 1921 Staley Swindle, the 1950 AAFC franchise rejection, the 1967 New Year’s Day disaster, Saban quitting for the second time, Ferguson’s poopy playoff ankle, the infamous Four Falls of Buffalo, the even more infamous two murders of OJ, the one “miracle” in the Music City, the seventeen straight years without playoffs, the Thirteen Seconds game, and everything Sabres-related for good measure (just because), as you dive headfirst into The Pit while wearing this jersey. Or is positivity more your cup of tea, albeit not at the expense of personal attention? Then on a metaphorically lighter note, you can pay homage to the franchise’s rich heritage of civil rights achievement by approximately matching your jersey color with the complexion of venerable civil rights icons like Cookie Gilchrist, Marlin Briscoe, and James Harris. Virtue signal to the world that you were one of the good Western New Yorkers who wasn’t harassing Marshawn Lynch in the Southtowns from 2007-2010. Bask in the societal plaudits as you are commended for your social justice awareness, beyond that one time you agreed to go on a date with that mixed race guy. In any case, no Upstate NY aesthete should dare venture into a Downstate NY world without this black Buffalo Bills jersey. For maximum jealousy effect, purchase a Josh Allen #17 version today so to constantly remind the New Jersey Jests fans what they’re missing. If they like it, then they should have put a 2018 first round draft pick on it.

Are young women really becoming more liberal? Or are we merely responding to a global political climate that has been shifting rightward underneath us? Maybe the proper question to ask is why young men’s brains are so reactionary and conspiracy-laden, compared to young men from just a couple decades ago? In this country alone, conservatives today are demonstrably more insane than they were at the turn of the century. We know this by comparing GOP policy platforms and candidate speeches throughout recent history. My working theory (based on the history of fascism): among men, the global shift to the right is a misdirected consequence of deep economic anxiety, in a world dominated by late-stage neoliberalism. Women tend not to feel this economic anxiety in the same way as men do, partly because the economic climate of bifurcated “haves” and “have-nots” is dictated heavily by educational attainment levels (which currently favor women by a fair amount). A bit of evolutionary psychology, however, is also at play: we know that men are disproportionately judged in society by their wealth accumulation. Woah! A Lysistrata reference! Speaking VERY GENERALLY (which is what this obnoxiously reductive thread is all about), women don’t view empathy as a source of weakness. We are not afraid of it informing our public policy stances. Logical thought, devoid of empathy, can normalize sociopathy. I would also argue that empathy is inextricably linked with rational decision-making in highly complex social structures. A couple examples of what I mean: 1. Universal health care and labor rights optimizing macroeconomic growth. 2. “Golden Rule” principles, as they pertain to issues like environmental rights/negative externalities, LGBT rights, and blowback from imperialistic foreign policies. Agreed…if not as early as this November, then definitely by the end of the decade. I’m tempering my electoral optimism for 2024 because of Biden’s senility and also because of the obvious ethnic cleansing in Gaza that he is condoning. If Republicans were politically savvy, they would advocate for some form of a bipartisan federal codification of Roe v. Wade, centered around 15 weeks and full of well-articulated exceptions. They are not politically savvy, however. They have instead chosen to declare some sort of bizarre pro-choice proxy war, of sorts, on Taylor Swift and on young females everywhere. Their candid outreach program for our demographic consists of calling us dumb, frivolous, hopelessly emotional, slutty, and too focused on having careers. Their best advice for us (no joke, if you glance at their social media and news media outlets!) is to hurry up and marry a conservative who will keep us focused on our true purposes: reproduction, housekeeping, and delicious sandwich-making. Let’s see how their antiquated wishful thinking plays out electorally…< insert Michael Jackson popcorn-eating gif here >…

Um…is anyone arguing that it does?? The money goes to a GREAT cause and it hopefully makes Tyler and his fiancee (daughter of former Bills punter, Rick Tuten!) feel a little better. That’s all we’re trying to accomplish here. Supposedly they’ve crossed the $250k donation mark. Let’s keep it rising! Any extra money can go to spaying and neutering members of Bills Mafia who are harassing Tyler. Here’s the website where you can donate: https://www.tenlivesclub.com/

That's because we already threw those people into The Pit.

But it’s not just about the thrills, Milanos Milano! It’s about respecting time-honored Buffalonian traditions. Risking one’s life to attend a Bills game is but one small thread in a rich cultural tapestry that is rapidly unraveling. I’m hearing it everywhere I go now: “Don’t drive through a blizzard just to attend a football game, Kay.” “Don’t set your body on fire and jump onto that folding table, Kay.” “Don’t bring your battery-operated Billdo to the Patriots home game, Kay.” “Don’t get high on LSD, cocaine, and marijuana and then cover yourself in feces from a nearby porta-potty and then hop over that fence and run down into the 40-foot hole that will become the new Bills stadium in three years…Kay.” What next? And when does it end? Can we at least keep Dyngus Day as is? Or must pu**ywillows and water buckets soon be accompanied with bike helmets and arm floaties? “Those who would give up a little cultural liberty for a little extra safety f*&%ing deserve neither,” said President William McKinley, I think, right before they SHOT AND KILLED HIM in the very streets of our Queen City. If these cultural COMMUNISTS have their druthers, our new stadium will soon become a character-less dome. We’ll have to forego all tailgating in the parking lot and instead walk right to our seats before kickoff. Our beloved Bills will be members of the rechristened National Two-Hand-Touch Football League (N2HTFL). Oh, and we’ll all be eating celery sticks sans chicken wings because of the cardiovascular disease risks…while speaking to each other in some sort of culturally appropriated Canadian dialect. The end of Western New York, as we have come to know and love it, is nigh.

I think I found them....Delta, flight #8859, ETA of 4:36am at the time of this post...just about to fly over the SC/NC border near Charlotte as of 3:30am...

1. Israel: Well…a two-state solution has been rendered impractical because of the continuous encroachments of Jewish Israeli settlers onto Palestinian lands. Let’s also not pretend as if Israel itself has been an honest, faithful negotiator during this entire time, dating back to 1967…and especially since the Second Intifada and its citizens’ swing toward far-right government leaders thereafter. Let’s also not forget Israel’s own culpability for barbarism, dating back to the 1948 Nakba. 2. Defense budget: The 50% reduction arguments are what I’ve seen others propose. I’m personally more in favor of 25-33% reductions, which would still leave the United States spending annually about twice as much as China. Warfare in the post-Cold War era is predominantly driven by advanced technology and not by manpower. The U.S. can still meet a mission objective of fighting a two-front war on opposite sides of the globe while closing down a bunch of extraneous military based abroad, putting most of the manpower on reserve/standby, and allocating much of the military expenditures as wartime/emergency deficit spending. 3. Post-WW2 power structures: I was merely describing what would be and what would have been preferable to having the United States as the lone democratic superpower. I don’t disagree with your historical explanation, though I do think there are ways today in which the U.S. can get other countries to shoulder more of the global military responsibilities. 4. Jumpstarting economies: You appear to be acknowledging that defense budget expenditures create jobs and accelerate technological growth. A classic precept of Keynesian economics is that government has the ability to redirect taxpayer investments and spending in ways that can grow the economy better than what the individual taxpayers might do under a laissez-faire system (especially during recessions). Regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict: I don’t see how pushing hard for a one-state solution is any more naive than thinking Israel can somehow defeat Hamas long-term with three months (and counting) of incredibly disproportionate bombing…bombing that has led to 30 thousand (and counting) murders, a 65-90% civilian casualty percentage (low-end reported from IDF…high-end reported from Euro-Med HRM), over 10 thousand (and counting) Gazan children who weren’t even alive during the last time Hamas was elected, 60 thousand (and counting) documented injuries of significance, and over 2 million displaced Gazans. Without a doubt, the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is going to foment greater regional hatred toward Israel and inspire new legions of Hamas-like terrorists…multiple times over. It has already done significant damage to Israel’s economy and international reputation. Their response to 10/7 is looking uncomfortably analogous to our own country’s stupid response to 9/11. Everyone labeled progressives as naive and unpatriotic during the early days of the tragically misguided “War on Terror,” just like they’re calling progressives naive and anti-Semitic now. I’m a professional engineer, so I like practical solutions. In the absence of any semblance of pragmatism, however, the correct choice WITHOUT HESITATION should be the most ethical one.

Fair enough. I just get defensive with any insinuation that progressives are isolationists. I’ll skip all the vague philosophical definitions or analyses of individual politicians and jump right to two contemporary case studies: 1. Ukraine: Standard progressive policy is that Ukraine should be supported with military aid, but only with explicit diplomatic conditions that help steer the region toward actual long-term peace. The “conditional” aid requirement is an acknowledgment that Ukraine was a clear victim of an aggressor (Russia), but at the same time a sensitivity to the various NATO provocations over the years which contributed to the aggression. 2. Palestine: Similarly, standard progressive policy here is that any aid given to Israel that rightfully helps the country defend itself from Hamas terrorism should be conditional. In this instance, the conditions are that Israel immediately halt its war crimes against Gazans and work honestly toward a one-state or two-state solution with the Palestinians. Do you still visit BillsFans.com, Doc Brown? They have an open politics subforum now, though at the moment it seems to only be populated with a small handful of far-righties. We agree on a lot here, Capco, but Mademoiselle Adams is not long for anodyne conversation when it comes to American foreign policy… First, we need to recognize that the United States functions as a corporate oligarchy and not as a vibrant republic responsive to the interests of its citizens. It follows that our country’s foreign policy reflects the economic interests of an elite few and has very little to do with any greater good. Moreover, the American citizenry has slowly become conditioned to adopt a “might makes right” sense of international ethics for mostly selfish reasons, while ignoring any Golden Rule violations. More than anything, I blame the Fourth Estate…and that includes BOTH sides…Fox News or MSNBC…all the same propaganda wing of the neoliberal corporate oligarchy. I agree that the United States should strive for having the unquestionably strongest military in the world. But what defense budget size is enough to meet this objective? I’ve seen legitimate arguments in favor of an annual budget reduction of FIFTY PERCENT. As taxpayers, we need to ask ourselves whether the focus still remains on national defense or whether it is now on lining the coffers for the corporate oligarchs of the military-industrial complex. I also agree with you that the world is better off with the United States as the dominant superpower…compared to a Russia, a China, a former Soviet Union, any autocracy, or any fundamentalist theocracy. However, I would argue that a number of Western democracies of relative equal strength would have been the much preferred power dynamic since the end of World War 2. There have been way too many regime-change wars, organized coups, and draconian sanctions on America’s lone eight-decade watch to the point that very few international people (especially in Latin America and the Middle East) still see the United States as any sort of shining beacon of moral integrity. We casually override the will of sovereign nations and invade, kill, interfere, and manipulate for the economic gain of the corporate oligarchy. Yup, and a key reason why Americans don’t have enough disposable money is because they are bogged down in debt: specifically educational debt, housing debt, and medical debt. The prices of these three critical goods/services have wildly outpaced wage growth since the Stagflation Era of the 1970’s. Too much money saved by Americans is funneled right to these very specific economic markets and not to the rest of the economy, which is highly suboptimal in terms of macroeconomic growth. So the question is: how do we jumpstart the economy and move it toward a way more optimal state? Some economic situations call for supply-side solutions and some call for demand-side ones. Macroeconomics is super complex, so much so that optimization solutions are best determined by data trends instead of by theory. I think the macroeconomics literature shows pretty firmly that government-initiated demand-side solutions would be far more preferable to our current economic malaise. And to be clear: I am NOT opposed to cutting taxes, streamlining government expenditures, eliminating frivolous regulations, expanding free trade policies, and the like. It’s just a matter of which government expenses/interventions are considered important and which are counterproductive to macroeconomic growth. The devil is in the details, as they say!

Trickle-down economics destroys the working class and shrinks the middle class. We have over four decades now of macroeconomics evidence that strongly suggests this to be true. All that tax money loosened from the government’s hands mostly gets diverted into other endeavors like stock buybacks and overseas investments, NOT domestic job creation. Respectfully, Capco, I don’t think this is true at all. You can still wield power (military, economic, political) on the international stage without also having to subsidize the military operations of other countries. You can still maintain a strong reserve currency without having to exploit labor and resources and governments abroad. You can do all this through diplomacy, by building a healthy domestic economy, and by maintaining a technologically superior military within one’s own borders. There’s the ethical component of this conversation, of course, that should be self-evident. As just one example among SO MANY, I’ll raise the issue of current ethnic cleansing in Gaza that the United States essentially funds for the primacy of Middle East hegemony (via an Israeli client state). But then there’s the matter of economic opportunity cost. International military subsidies would be better served in the broader hands of taxpayers than in those specifically of the military-industrial complex. Example: in the United States, medical debt is easily the number one cause of personal/family financial ruin. If we could actually use all that money to instead fund our own universal health care system (like the rest of the modern industrialized world does), we could free up so many Americans to become healthier participants in the economy…i.e. have much better GDP growth, which equates to greater economic power. Isolationism and non-interventionism are two distinct philosophies.

As long as it's not from the same luxury box that Takeo Spikes was given.

No, I believe our team was named after a fictional serial killer. Did you know: the original helmet logo was that of a transvestite in a standing mirror, with his private parts tucked between his legs?? Later, the franchise opted for a more "action-based" logo that better represented the skills of its newly acquired marquee player, OJ Simpson. This subsequent logo took on the form of that same transvestite, but this time chasing a great big fat person while dressed in royal blue garb befitting a queen. A red streak was used to conceal the swinging private parts. The NFL a.k.a. "No Fun League," however, deemed this particular logo a bit too risque...so they just went with the lame charging bison that we know and tolerate today.