Johnny Coli

There's no way he got that TO off before the play clock went to zero. None.

It's to the point now where even Madden and Michaels are saying they're bad calls. This is a joke.

Huh? How is that a grey area? That's what a pharmacy does. Rubbers are not controlled substances, and can be bought without a prescription. The regulation in Mass requires that if you are going to run a pharmacy in the state of Mass, that you have to have the medications that the people in Mass expect you to carry. Once again, this is not about buying a unique brand of over-the-counter aspirin. This is about a specific, unique medication that has been chosen by a qualified professional for a patient's specific need. People in Mass have a reasonable expectation that they can walk into any pharmacy in Mass and get this prescription filled. Pharmacys dispense drugs. They do not get to dispense medications based on what they deem to be morally acceptable or not. Not in Massachusetts.

Seattle 28 Silk Curtain 13

Well, I knew you were doing the tongue-in-cheek thing. I was just heading off at the pass anyone else who wanted to use some other variation of that analogy. I don't think under any normal circumstances is it OK for a healthcare professional or a pharmacist to refuse to give someone treatment or to fill a doctor prescribed medicine. In this case, we can assume (because Wal-Mart has been tight-lipped about it) that Wal-Mart is making some kind of moral judgement as to which prescriptions they want to fill, and which ones they don't. Under the Mass Board of Pharmacy regulations, they can't make that decision. They are, of course, perfectly welcome to try and sue for that privledge, just as these women are perfectly right to file suit to make them comply with the regulation.

I wouldn't say Brady had such an outstanding year, really. The Pats went 3 and 8 against teams with winning records in the regular season, squeaking into the playoffs in the worst division in football. Seven of their ten wins came against the AFCE (5) and two other sub-0.500 teams. For years we have heard Pats fans ridicule Manning for playing in a soft division. Brady should be no excepton. Where is all the talk of Brady's tendancy to throw endzone picks in playoff games (3 in 11)? If a RB fumbles the ball on the 1 yard line in 3 out of 11 games he would never be allowed to touch the ball again. The rest of the team bailed Brady out on two of them, but his endzone INT in Denver, his team's biggest game of the season, was the single-most crucial play of that game. And for that he get's to flip the coin at the Superbowl? The NFL couldn't find anyone more worthy? They couldn't find a soldier from Iraq, or another QB from the past?

No one is forcing Wal-Mart to operate a phamacy in Massachusetts. However, like any other business in any other state, Wal-Mart should comply with that state's regulations, just like every other pharmacy in Mass. Wal-Mart can not choose which regulations to follow, and which ones not to follow. The beer analogy doesn't work. Yes, it is a regulated substance, but it is "over-the-counter" and there is a variety of choices. You can walk into a bar and they may not have Stella Artois, but you can either choose to go to another establishment, or drink another brand. Medications are prescribed by a professional, to be filled by a professional at a licensed pharmacy. Many medications, until they reach the generic stage, are the only choice the consumer has. To ensure that a burden isn't placed on an individual, in many times a sick individual, to find a pharmacy that caries a specific medication, Masachusetts has a regulation in place ensuring that the individual can walk into any pharmacy in the state and get that prescription filled. Wal-Mart has given no legitimate reason other than an ambiguous "for business reasons" as to why they feel they don't have to comply.

I bet they give him the Superbowl MVP. In all seriousness, I hope they booo the hell out of that mediocre tool.

This is not be a Church and State issue. If Wal-Mart wants to maintain a pharmacy in the state of Mass, it has to follow the regulations set by Mass. We're not talking about Wal-Mart refusing to sell korean Barbie dolls, we're talking about Wal-Mart being a supplier of regulated substances and disregarding regulations put in place by the state of Mass regarding those regulated substances. I fail to see how Wal-Mart is being punished here. I fail to see how anyone is being harmed here. Any company in any other business has to follow regulations, laws, restrictions, whatever in the state they do business in. I work for a pharmaceutical company in Cambridge. We can't just ignore regulations for "business reasons." Maybe some of those restrictions aren't in place in Boise, Idaho, but we're not in Boise, Idaho. If the restrictions are too prohibitive, we'll just move. No one is forcing Wal-Mart to do business in Mass. They choose to be here, and as such they must follow the regulations that pertain to the business they operate. Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit. This is about whether a person can go into a pharmacy in Mass and have the availability of the drug be the same in any other pharmacy in the state. I'm backing the State of Massachusetts' right to regulate how controlled substances are distributed with regards to expected availability.

Thus the reason for the regulation. Everyone with a prescription in Mass expects to be able to fill that perscription in any pharmacy in Mass.

Huh? What does school prayer have to do with this? This lawsuit is about a reasonable expectation that a pharmacy carries a specific drug. In the state of Massachusetts, the Mass Pharmacy Board requires pharmacies in the State of Mass to "maintain on the premises at all times a sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community." In Mass, it is a reasonable assumption that you can get a specific medication from a pharmacy, regardless of whether that pharmacy is a local mom and pop pharmacy, a regional pharmacy, or an american-wide chain with a pharmacy on the premises. Wal-Mart may not like those regulations, but Wal-Mart can not decide which state-wide regulations it wants to follow and which ones to ignore, and Wal-Mart can not unilaterally exclude itself from carrying a medicine for ambiguous "business reasons" when the population of Mass has a reasonable assumption that the medication will be there. If they want to operate a pharmacy in the state of Massachusetts, then they have to carry these drugs, like every other pharmacy in Mass. That is what the lawsuit is about. I really don't follow why this is here. No one is coming to take anyone away. If Wal-Mart wants to do business in the State of Mass, then it has to abide by the regulations set by the state of Mass. Would you be using this quote if the medication in question was not an emergency contraceptive?

I think Seattle wins by 10 points.

The Massachusetts Pharmacy Board has a state-wide regulation requiring that pharmacies ''shall maintain on the premises at all times a sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community." 247 CMR 6.00 Registration, Management and Operaton of a Pharmacy or Pharmacy Department (section 6.02 (4)) The issue for these women really isn't that they can not get Plan B, as every other pharmacy in Mass carries it and Wal-Mart isn't that big of a presense out here. Most people go to CVS. The issue is whether Wal-Mart can unilaterally decide not to carry this drug for "business reasons." (Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark, in yesterday's Boston Globe...declined to discuss further what the "business reasons" were (Globe article.))

The deck is pretty stacked in favor of getting the warrant. I believe the number was out of some 20,000 plus requests, less than 15 were turned down. And those that are turned down can be appealed to yet another special court. I will look for the link for the specific numbers. We covered all this back in the fall. EDIT: I was wrong. It looks like the numbers are 1222 out of 1226. They got turned down four times. So you're totally correct, Joe. Having to get a warrant before they tap, or even a year later, is totally threatening the security of the nation.

If you're going to be hung over, you might as well be hung over at work and get paid for it. Why ruin (and use up) a good day off?

I was going to say "Session 9", but the ending (Spoiler alert)............doesn't quite fit KFabD's original criteria of no one actually getting hurt. Danver's State is up near my way. People try to break into it all the time. It's on one of those Urban Adventures lists; people break into abandoned buildings at night, not kids getting loaded and having illicit sex on tables they, used to perform lobotomies on, but people that bust in for the rush, take a few photos or old syringes, and leave. Edit: Just re-read his post again. I guess it doesn't matter if someone actually gets killed, and in that case, Session 9 fits perfectly.

The big question is how will the officials manage to hand the game to the Patriots if they aren't one of the two teams playing in the game. The NFL has had two weeks to prepare for it. It should be interesting.

Nope, I'm completely serious. The fact is, to anyone with an ounce of common sense, is that to use the word "dynasty" in describing the Pats is completely delusional. They won the Superbowl in 2001 on a run of incredibly good luck, poor officiating, and horrendous coaching on the part of their opponents. In fact, the very next season they failed to even make the playoffs, cementing the dubious nature of the '01 Superbowl run. I will give them '03 and '04, and will admit that for a span of 18 months they had a good team (and by good team, I really mean great defense and great coaching, because the offense had very little to do with that playoff run). However, this year (the '05 season), had they been in any other division if football (they got to play the AFCE 6 times, accounting for half of their wins) they would have never made the playoffs. Only 3 of their 10 wins came against teams with winning records. Common sense dictates we give the Pats kudos for a good 18 months of football, but no more than that. In fact, when compared to the mid-90s Cowboys who won 3 Superbowls in 4 years, the Pats look foolish. The Cowboys actually made the playoffs in the one year they didn't win it, going to the NFC championship game. Their "run" actually lasted five years. Not only is the Pats' run done, as evidenced by this year's spiral into mediocrity, but they haven't actually been good in over a year. It's common sense.

Like when O'Donnell threw those picks in the Superbowl against the Cowboys. I thought Cowher was going to run out onto the field. I hate the Steelers, and I hate Cowher. My "misery index" will go down when the Steeler's misery goes up. Go Seahawks.

Tom Brady is a slightly better-than-average system QB who needs a top-five defense, an excellent coach and a clutch kicker to win ballgames. Also, he now has an established tendency (ie 3 times over 11 games) to throw INTs in the endzone at crucial times during playoff games. This year the Pats finished 4 and 8 against teams with records over 0.500, solidifying the common sense reality that not only were they not a dynasty, they are clearly on the decline, and Brady is indeed the slightly-better-than-mediocre QB we all knew him to be.

They are also pronouncing it "fuel" on Boston Sports radio.

Holy Cow!

Jacob's Ladder. Not a house, though.

How about American Psycho?

It ain't rocket science, and it ain't brain surgery.