RuntheDamnBall

I've been saying for awhile that the less anybody pays attention to us, the better. Let the popular teams bear the scrutiny of the media and let the Bills play and win football games.

I'm sorry, that's silly and these are kids playing. This mentality has killed the love of too many kids for the game. I've spent a lot of time with Little League as a player, coach, and umpire, and the worst thing for it is jerk coaches/parents who think that winning is everything when you're dealing with 8-12 year-olds. What sometimes happens is even the star athletes are pushed too hard by their folks and they end up giving up. When I was young my dad coached the team, and I still have friends say that he was the best coach he ever had. He gave everyone who was willing to make an effort a chance. Not that he just let everyone pitch, etc -- they had to prove to him that they wanted to pitch. It was all anyone needed, because he respected everyone enough to give them a chance. We didn't win every game, but we had a blast and it was not the end of the world when we did lose, because we were always trying hard and we believed in our coach and in each other. I can look back and remember that time more fondly than a lot of the kids who were "better players" can. Sure, it's important to teach kids about competition and all, but teaching them that they're never going to have a shot at age 10? What kind of America is that? Up until 12, if kids want to play, let them play, and make it enjoyable for them, not a burden they have to shoulder of being the best. I hope you re-evaluate where you stand on this, honestly, because you seem like a decent dude. Edit: also, just for the record, I agree that if a championship is on the line that the coach didn't put his players in the best position to succeed. You counter strategy with strategy and if you do want to win, and you want that kid to play, you put him in the nine hole where he has the leadoff hitter for protection and is not right behind the team's best slugger in the order. I probably would have walked the slugger, too. Although if my team was really the best, I'd love to think we could have gotten the guy out regardless.

I'm pretty sure I can't stand the smooth jazz thing. Not that these guys aren't good players, but that's just it. It's so smooth that the occasions for any spontaneity, any rough edges, are completely closed off -- it sounds like elevator music or shopping at Tops. As far as modern jazz, I stick with more avant performers like Matthew Shipp and William Parker. One more mainstream group that's newer that I can recommend is a trio called The Bad Plus. In addition to a pretty fine repertoire of their own material, they cover Aphex Twin, Blondie, Nirvana, etc. Their first record "These Are the Vistas" is pretty good. It's not quite so gimmicky as the gentlemen who cover Radiohead, IMO. Also, I might mention that there are some really great branchings off of jazz into Brazilian and other world musics. Exploring jazz is a good chance to explore some of the other rhythmically complex sounds of the world. Certainly they have meant a lot to the development of jazz.

It's the preseason. I know you live close to the bridge, but let's see some games before you jump.

Cool, that means I can divert all my attentions to the defense and special teams. I'm so glad WGR is there to do my "thinking" for me.

I was thinking "LaDairis," the parrot-boy. But you're right, I could have been more specific.

Bwak. Where's LaDumbass when you need him?

I don't know why, but this sentence conjures up the mental picture of like a couple well-dressed dudes on Vespas smoking grass until someone crashes into a telephone pole.

And my point, which I'll repeat one last time, is that to engage with them in the kind of war we are used to, with bombs and guns and troops, is to stir up their pot even more, and to hurt the cause of rational Muslims who might work on their own to bring down the oppressive regimes that rule them -- both the fanatically religious ones and the ones more interested in power for its own sake. Remember the campaign that we weren't going to be "World Police"? Why are we doing it now, when what it really amounts to is drawing a bigger bullseye on our backs?

Well, I'm not sure about the peace-loving lambs part, but there is a history in Iran eerily similar to the present in Iraq, where we helped install and support a U.S.-friendly Iranian government (deposing a democratically elected one [!]), basically giving rise to the radical Islamic revolution in 1979. They did feel bullied. And they've been trying to take it out on us since they got into power. This is from the Wikipedia entry: They don't just hate us because of Britney Spears and soda-pop.

Way to miss the point as usual.

I'm sort of sick of seeing these comparisons. This is a completely different era than WWII, where the Nazis and Japanese, above all, were concerned with power -- not consumed with religious fervor. Say we drop a bomb. Then what? You think the armies of jihad are going to say "whoah, we surrender," or find themselves galvanized even more than they are against a common enemy, as has been the case with every large-scale attack we've made on them? Our covert operations and intelligence work, and yes, police work, are going to serve us better than firepower and wide-scale public destruction. The latter is only going to convince more Muslims that there's nothing worth living for, and that it's worth it to sacrifice life to hurt their enemies. We need to shift the focus once and for all away from us and toward the leadership (or lack thereof) within the ME that is responsible for a dearth of progress in terms of quality of life and human rights. The only way to do that is to stop being the lightning rod -- to stop supporting repressive regimes with wild oil consumption, and to stop making the ME our business. We are making things worse for democracy and for progressive minds in the ME with every militarily aggressive move we make (and support, in the case of Israel) there.

The Butch Rollers The Guns of Braxton The Villarial Disease The Haz-Beens "Where's Bucky" Brooks The Taken-to-Taskers "Ten Force" Gale Gilbert

Well-said, and a good case for a commitment to the run game.

739039[/snapback] Actually, both statements are true. 739158[/snapback] Yikes.

I recommend one newer release -- Monk and Coltrane at Carnegie Hall, which was unearthed and released last year. Both dudes in a great period of their careers, and a really stellar combo. And since I know you're into some trippier rock, you should maybe check out some '69-70 era Miles. Lots of people cite "Bitches Brew" but I really prefer "In a Silent Way," which sets the tone for drum'n'bass about 20 years prior (Tony Williams was a sick drummer), and "A Tribute to Jack Johnson" (when Miles was inspired to put together a rock band after hearing Jimi and Sly). There is a great box for each that has some excellent outtakes and session material once you get deeper in. A track called "Honky Tonk" has some really nasty John McLaughlin riffs and Miles playing through a fender bender that sounds real muscular.

I'm betting the Lord is a falafel man, and he likes Azuri Cafe.

All this guy had to do was put forth minimum effort at school for another year in a situation where the bar is set extremely low for talented athletes. What a (sadly, all-too-believable) waste.

Wow, there's an accomplishment. BTW: bands were playing dress-up before Kiss. Like the NY Dolls, Bowie, etc etc etc.

How many centuries is that in VABills math?

Hey, if they really do work out, you should trademark that.

Aren't inside jokes pretty much always lost on others? I figured the guys were joking, it just seems like a hokey publicity stunt and they're trying to sound cool.

To me it says, "Yep, afternoon constitutional, then dinner and then, Matlock."

Kelly-Hull II? Pleeease?