RuntheDamnBall

The religion comment is for another argument, but isn't it in a sense true? Borders don't naturally exist, though there are "natural" borders like oceans and rivers that serve as demarcating lines for us. They do in manmade fashion define and differentiate "mine" from "yours," to what end but to feel safe in knowing what's ours, who we are and aren't. Why else would they be associated with protection? Where I find difficulty is in defining something as mine by little other than birthright. At the same time, I recognize the sense of ownership one tends to have and how that projects to nation.

Hull should be a HoFer. Plain and simple. As the first Bills center I really paid attention to, the memories of Hull made watching Trey Teague an even more sickening experience. Imagine, a center who has command and toughness, as opposed to one guiding a line to mediocrity at best, and stepping on the ankles of his QB before the count of three. Ugh.

Lord, send the rain on this one.

We all know it. A reason for confidence, and a reason to believe these guys are going to think long and hard about training to stay healthier. We've got nothing if we don't have our optimism. I'm just glad that I'm optimistic because these guys are finding success -- as compared to the Bills, where I'm optimistic only because the bar is being set really low right now and it seems there's nowhere to go but up.

You've got to be kidding, Joe. The Sabres caught themselves off guard. I don't think for a minute that Darcy thought this team was making it all the way to game 7 of the ECFs. That's a bonus for a team this young. Now they're seasoned with that experience -- that's something you cannot buy for these young guys. If Darcy blows the team up, that's one thing. But I can't believe for a minute that they'll do such a thing. They have stable backing, they made money this year, and while they have a lot of guys who will be asking for raises, they are deserved and Darcy and co. will realize that. Again, reserve judgment. Lindy knows even more what will make this team go after this past run. He has gotten them to the ECFs three times and to the playoffs five times in a career that's included an organization's all-time low point with the bankruptcy/Rigas disaster. He is a great coach, and he will bring great things. I'll be there to enjoy the ride. We'll all remember your forecasts of failure when you're suddenly believing in this team for the next playoff run.

Why watch, then? Why spend hours of the day reading and posting on a sports message board if sports are such a miserable and fatally doomed experience? This is what I'm trying to understand here. We have a great team and a solid coach and a system the players believe in. Money could possibly get in the way of that but as we've seen, healthy and hungry youngsters who don't know better can make a real difference in the new NHL. I'll reserve judgement and look at the success of this year as a harbinger of things to come as opposed to a last hurrah, thank you. This team is too young and on the cusp of things too great to bail on them right now.

Good analysis.

Of course we're bitter. We believed the Sabres had a chance, a real chance, and that they were the better team. We still believe that, and that but for injuries, that's how it would have played out. I also feel that the Oilers would have had a better chance if they didn't lose their footing -- and Roloson -- early. But, that's how it played out. The Canes are champions and you can't take that away from them. They didn't get it in dubious fashion, as did the Stars (who were, sadly, the better team anyway). Generally, they earned it. You just hate to see the team that you feel is better on the losing end, especially if they're your team. Congrats, and I guarantee you a healthy Sabres squad will be coming out on top in the next 4 years. Let's bring on the competition.

Not in the least, to answer an almost rhetorical question. I'm all for systemic change. The problem here is that people are voluntarily submitting to being a part of the cheap labor process. So you have businesses looking to exploit people, and people willing to be a part of that exploitation because things aren't even nearly as good back home. We can only control one end of that and while I wish we could legislate ethics and get companies to always do the right thing, it's been tough thus far.

They're a hot topic, obviously, but what do borders mean to you? There are strict protectionists who really feel strongly that we need to fortify and close off our borders as much as possible. As for myself, I'm not sure exactly. I'm kind of at an impasse as to what our borders mean. Our forefathers made clear that we are to stand for the equality of all peoples, but we have some regulations (and may redefine them) and requirements for coming in and being a part of that equality. Some (we try not to accept people who make their way by criminal means) are obviously for the better. Some are debatable, and hotly so -- requirements on speaking our common language, for example. A lot of us grew up next to a border that (I posit) didn't mean much in Canada. The differences between us were pretty minimal aside from a lower drinking age that some took advantage of, the *ahem* ballet, taxes, and some goofy cultural asides. I'm certain those who grew up near the Mexican border have different stories to share. What is a border other than a marker of 'difference'? Philosophically, I struggle with the sort of universal principles and ideals our nation is supposed to embody and strive for while maintaining dividing lines that say, to an extent, "you are not a part of this." At the same time, I understand the practicality of maintaining borders and the interests we're trying to protect in doing so. Am I alone here? Honestly, I'm just looking for good discussion. Please, leave all diatribes and cynicism at the door.

Like it or not, cheap labor keeps America going. And it has from the beginning. Changing this would require more than just a bunch of xenophobic laws or $1000 slaps on the wrists of corporations. Unfortunately, wherever there's a regulation, there's someone looking to circumvent or exploit it. I have no doubt it'll be the case if this kind of stuff passes.

Why don't you back this stuff up with some facts and figures? The only figure you have is 55% population. Well, an area that has over half the state's residents is going to, by nature, take up a lot of its resources. Besideswhich, 55% is a misnomer here. Outside of NYC, 3.5 million live in Westchester/surrounding areas, Long Island accounts for almost another 3 million. Don't try and pass it off like NYC is only half the state. It's more like 2/3. That's not accounting for people who even travel down the Hudson all the way up from Albany to work in the city. In case you didn't notice, NYC also provides a wealth of resources and is the main attraction as one of the financial, media and information capitals of the world -- not just for the state or nation. The tax base of New York City and Long Island -- as well as all the other areas that are high-population due to proximity -- is significant compared to any money that might come in from the Buffalo / WNY area. As for Bruno, he's just another complicit figure in our state's unaccountable shadow government. Albany needs reform and it's not because of NYC. I'm a native WNYer but I left WNY because NYC presents opportunities for young people. In WNY these are simply few and far between, with less pay, less chances to move up, less frequent available work, and in some ways I feel a lot safer than in some areas of Buffalo.

Self-imposed NHL blackout. Superstition. I want Edmonton to win and every time I've tuned in, they've lost.

Putting him in association with NAMBLA and the AIDS comment were the last straw in an entire argument that began by going too far. As if it's a crime to have AIDS to begin with, regardless of whether they did or didn't. Aren't we past 1989? I'm sure these people have seen the "Vagina Monologues," also. People this ignorant make me sick. That's some really nasty rhetoric and you're right, it's mostly the context they put it in that's the worst. Actually, the absolute worst is that as McCain's aligned himself with the people who betrayed him in such a way, it's entirely possible someone who is now pro-McCain would do such a thing.

Score another for the sacred institution of marriage.

Wow, they're really going to go after him in nasty, untruthful ways. It's too bad people are so hateful and ignorant.

No specific time limit (IIRC, Herbie Hancock famously sampled one hit from a Yes song and got sued). However it's been ruled on other occasions that one can sample a bassline and not get hit with a lawsuit as it's not part of the song structure/melody. The law is all over the place on this.

What happens is that any public venue (a restaurant, stadium, etc, etc) that plays published music usually pays a flat fee to BMI / ASCAP, etc. They then do several surveys yearly + playlists are furnished that tell them how much play a particular song / artist is getting. Artists are then compensated accordingly by the publisher they go through, depending on their deal. Some artists do not own the rights to songs they've written (perhaps most famously, John Fogerty didn't own the Creedence catalog that he penned most of), and don't get paid when they are played, and on rare occasions even get cease-and-desist letters from the owner/publisher when they do play their songs! Ridiculous, right?! Reason enough for any artist looking for a publishing deal to eye the fine print. A lot of young ones sign over everything to the label's publisher in hopes they will make them rich. OTOH, hopefully Glitter doesn't own his publishing, or if he does all the money goes to heavy fines he owes.

Oh, I REALLY hope so.

I hope Nance makes the team and catches 100, or goes down in a blaze of glory, because either way nothing else will justify this much argument about him. Good lord, what if the internet was as sophisticated in the days of Al Edwards and Jeremy McDaniel?

Other problem is Gore is not a natural campaigner. It should be a reason for Americans to like him, and if he presented himself the way he did in the movie and in the unreleased Spike Jonze campaign film, he would have won outright in 2000 -- presenting himself as 'outside the charade of the campaign' and here to talk about ideas. Instead it became cause for people to think he had an identity crisis. The people managing his campaign were completely out of their league.

That's one thing I have been hearing and have to disagree with, though it seems to become a self-fulfilling statement. Politicians have a relatively short shelf-life in which they can really be on the national stage, make an impact, and make a run at the presidency (see: George Bush). 4-to-potentially-8 more years of Senate record for Obama might induce less enthusiasm for him, and will definitely provide enough votes for an opposition to parse and tear apart. Really, IMO, he should run. He has youth, enthusiasm, difference, and is not enough of an insider yet, so he could run offering an outside or different perspective. Of course, he'll have all sorts of establishment against him (Hillary, possibly Gore, possibly Kerry). Exactly the reason to make an anti-establishment run. People are so ready for it. That said, Warner-Clark would be a ticket I could get behind.

Are Sabres games any less exciting when the defensemen block a substantial number of the shots and they don't see the goalie? I don't think so. It's just a different kind of excitement, IMO. I'll agree that it's not as edge-of-your-seat thrilling as hockey, but that's also because I have a horse in that race. They're gone now, and as much as I like the game, I can't stand watching a team I've grown to hate win. And every time I tune in, they win. Go Oilers, but I'm maintaining the Stanley Cup blackout at my place. In the meantime, it's much more fun watching the World Cup without a big rooting interest. I can grow to appreciate the game and the opportunity that some of these teams have, from nations where this sport is all or the best they've got. We have no such concept of nation in our sports -- it's all regional. And sociologically, that makes it pretty interesting. OTOH, I can't stand 1) watching guys dog it/walk when the ball is nearby -- which made it cool when Rooney came in today and England just all of a sudden got FAST, and 2) the flopping/theatrics -- reeling and writhing in pain, breaking out the stretcher, and then coming back in for a substitution 2 minutes later.

Now that sh-- is scary.

I'm surprised you'd see Hillary winning among the Dems. And I don't see Kerry as a serious candidate this time around. The former has been alienating the Democratic base, and the latter is going to be seen as a loser and a non-starter. Gore probably intrigues the most Dems at this point. Of course, the less you are a politician-in-the-game, the better you look -- that's doing a lot for Gore right now. No certainty he'll run yet, though. You also might see an upstart like Warner from Virginia or someone else pop up the way Bill Clinton did in '92.