RuntheDamnBall

Leno actually rightly remarked that he looks kind of like Dennis Hastert.

I cannot see Travis being happy as a backup, and I don't find retaining him to be fair either since we gave him an very cost-effective extension, then drafted a new starter. We let this work its way out while we figured out what we had in McGahee and whether Travis could handle his role in the new system. McGahee won, but it's only fair to let Henry have his chances elsewhere after what he has accomplished for us. I think the ideal situation would be a trade for a conditional draft pick for 2006: Considering his injuries, 3rd round at least, upgraded to 2nd round if he hits 1000 yards in 2005, 1st-rounder if he surpasses 1500. This would be fair in that if he is even close to as good as he was for us in 02-03, we get a second rounder. If he's fantastic, we aren't big losers for letting him go and the other team is getting a good value for their first-rounder.

tie between Joan Allen, Julianne Moore and Frances McDormand

Indeed. Current version: Scarlett Johannson.

It will increase with better run blocking.

Like, "Dude," I don't think anyone advertising Emo should tell another to grow the heck up. But, like, whatever. I was just positing a situation that may indeed exist this spring. And sometimes it seems like Moulds needs to grow the heck up since he can't seem to contain himself enough to stop whining about pass interference ot every play, or to not get flagged for personal fouls. I wouldn't mind having a quiet professional like Harrison as our A-1 receiver.

Honestly, I have not been happy with Moulds' play lately. He always looks for pass interference, and drops some easy ones. I know he's been a "quintessential Bill" but considering where we have (not) gotten with him, I'd be happy to cut him loose. Would we take a big cap hit in letting him go? That said, there would be an obvious need for an experienced receiver. Harrison has complained about not getting the ball enough at Indy and is not having a flashy season in a contract year... Could we possibly get him? I know Donahoe isn't shy about making the big FA move, and we don't have a #1 this year to spend money on... Perhaps I'm just dreaming again of bringing a former 'Cuse star to the Ralph.

Picked up Buckley's Live at Sin-E expanded edition, and it has some fantastic Dylan covers on it ("I Shall Be Released," "Just Like a Woman," and "If You See Her, Say Hello"). I am a big Dylan fan but Buckley's versions are definitely something special. He simply owned a song while he was singing it. I'm firmly convinced that he probably had one of the great records of all time in him but never got to put it out before his death. Kudos to whomever mentioned Nick Drake. A big favorite of mine. John Fahey is also amazing; anyone impressed with Drake's playing would be blown away by Fahey. I believe Jimmy Page even admits to ripping Fahey off.

"Academy Fight Song"-- Mission of Burma a close second would be "Sleep Awhile" off the new Will Johnson album "Vultures Await." Highly recommended.

heard this on NPR this morning. Indian Casino case What the hell is wrong with people? Oh, right, uncontrollable greed. The overlooked sin.

Umm, no. Look, Islam has been around for a lot shorter of a period of time than the Judeo-Christian tradition. Basically the argument here is that Islam is inextricably linked with violence. Perhaps someone of a more violent Christian era would argue the same thing of that religion. It is not so far-fetched. The middle ages were brutal -- monarchies were deemed to have the authority of God, and they did some pretty awful things for entertainment on the weekends. We have tunnel vision; claiming that Islam is the reason for the violence is an easy out that allows one to avoid looking for a real solution (instead, "nuke 'em all") that might involve trying to help other people make their lives better. Go tell a Muslim woman who is doing everything in her power to help lift her fellow Afghan women from oppression that she is evil and everything she believes in is a lie. It won't rest on my conscience. Basically, you can look at the religion from a fundamentalist point of view (and those who tend to do so with Islam tend to do so with their reading of Christianity as well), or you can look at the guides for living within a religion from a progressive standpoint and understand how one can make people's lives better.

Compassionate conservatism is back! BOOYA!

article from Newsday I wish this were unreal. Ex-military people here will probably appreciate this even more. Heartbreaking, regarless.

I think pass-blocking has pretty much been a strength save for a few breakdowns. Drew is indeed the problem. But run-blocking has regressed since last year IMO. McGahee should definitely have a better average the way he has been running.

SKMarget? Or KMarket of Tears?

Caught some of both, hopefully they're on again. One was (partly?) by a female Afghan journalist from Kabul (on the "Independent Lens" program). Really displayed how different it is for women in Kabul post-Taliban, but also how bad it still is outside the city limits. What a brave woman. But so much more work to do. The other was a NOW interview with a Nation journalist who has spent significant time in Afghanistan. Really detailed how things are going in terms of control by warlords, our "hands-off" policy on the opium trade and how women are actually making more money now because the opium harvesting jobs pay very well. It's a complete conundrum; this was a pretty good look at the effects of our current policy there. Even though the writer was from the Nation it was a pretty matter-of-fact story. It was much more substantive than any of the "we let Osama escape" accusations that pass for dialogue about the state of Afghanistan. I highly suggest all check these out for themselves (particularly the first doc).

The "true believers" do not need to have their flames stoked, you are right. But Abu Ghraib was a significant setback in that it naturalized a sentiment of hatred on the part of Iraqis for us. Some of those Iraqis probably became more involved in the insurgency, some merely more sympathetic; meanwhile the moderates who recognize the good we are doing have less feet to stand on because they are viewed as people who condoned our less savory actions as well. These problems are not with our soldiers, they are systemic. Right now Bush has proven he is quite capable of winning a campaign and acting like a winner in war, but he has yet to prove he has what it takes to deal with other nations diplomatically, post-war. I hope for the sake of further American lives he learns, fast.

You are probably right. I still think there is danger in ignoring the Geneva conventions, though, moreso in situations like Abu Ghraib. Surely what transpired in that prison has been a motivating and recruiting force for more terrible acts on behalf of the terrorists.

I think the problem is when we go back on international law it is really detrimental to our troops and any civilians we have stationed anywhere. If our word is no good, why should anyone else have to adhere to the rules? This puts our guys in harm's way if they are captured, in Iraq or in the future. As for what else can be the answer when we're fighting some brutal enemies, I have no idea. Please don't kill the messenger. I am passing no judgement on the events that transpired on tape. I hate killing, but I have no idea what was going on there. And the injured Iraqi may well have had a bomb; this is the mark of the awful war we are engaged in.

Basically, they're based on the teachings of great people, the successes and mistakes of history, learning from what went wrong and right before my time. Some of these are religious, but I think ethics are always (properly) up for debate and refined and re-understood to be timely (for cases like cloning, stem cell research, etc which i have honest questions about). My ethics are based on an inherent worth and dignity of every person, the opportunity for that person to be who they want to be within parameters that do not harm another, and a constant search for and re-definition of elusive truth, a need to understand others rather than define them and distance myself from them. This does not mean no sense of right or wrong, it means understanding why something is right or wrong, what makes it wrong. Words on a piece of paper, no matter how spiritually or historically significant it is, don't make something right or wrong. The impact an action has on another, and that other's ability to decide in the matter, make that action right or wrong to me. It's not the Ten Commandments that need to be in our schools, it's the Golden Rule. Best thing ever written.

They may argue that, but the fact is a child cannot make a reasonable choice about the issue. That's where the difference lies.

A message to go join Ditka in the monkey-house? Excuse me, i have to run and get my Saints/Bears split jersey held together with nacho cheese.

I prefer ethics, Arondale. I am a Christian Unitarian, and I don't really want to get into the finer details of that. Great figures of the Bible owned slaves. Early Americans justified their ownership of slaves, whether explicitly or in an implied manner, through or despite the Bible. I think there are so many contradictions in the Bible because even if it may be the Word Of God, it has been in the hands of man for centuries. Look at the gospels. One is more critical of Romans, the other of Jews. There are societal reasons for this. It is but one example. Re: translation I could go deep into it, but witness simply the myriad Greek words for what we define as "love" -- which we have but one word for. Is this not problematic? Translation is negotiation. There is always truth lost in translation. Morals to me are defined by a society at a specific moment. They do change. Ethics provide me with the more "live-and-let-live as long as it is not doing harm to others," and "strive to do what is best for others" code that I tend to live by (one I think most libertarians would appreciate). That is what Jesus was about for me. Not hellfire and brimstone and judgement.

I will surely eat my own foot, OnTheRocks, is that what you're asking for? If our schools are in the business of sanctioning pedophiles, who take advantage of boys OR girls, then we're in real deep stevestojan. It's not going to happen, and any fantasy of such an occasion is pure paranoia. Your problem is that you're equating the acts of consensual adults with pedophiles, which is sickening. Funny how our country is particularly worried about man-boy pedophilia but turns a blind eye to "filthy teen slutz" or whatever (heterosexual) exploitation of young girls is going on, and has little problem with the "can't wait till she's 18" mentality proffered by so many around here. Color me disgusted.

they have been an association for a long time. I actually heard about them 20 years ago. They are as wrong and outside the mainstream as they will ever be. Children are not consenting adults. What is your point, exactly? Edit: if you read your own link you would have seen that NAMBLA was founded 1978. Nice work, again.