OGTEleven

I watched this and found the very basis of the argument to be without logic for many reasons which I'll skip for now. But for the sake of argument, let's go with the column structure for a moment. One would have to assume (since he offers no comprehensive description of the proposed actions) that in this column government(s) gain massive control over the economy(s). We would further have to assume that if the consequences in column B are so devastating that the actions to repel them in column A would have to be drastic. To match the extremity in column B, it could be assumed that we would have to cut all, or a very large percentage of our oil use for example. Sticking to column B but trying to get out and into column A, if the action taken were to truly have a chance of succeeding it would have to ensure total cooperation between governments worldwide as well as whatever is left of private industry along with cooperation of individuals. This cooperation would have to be assumed despite the fact that technologies exist to circumvent it and despite the fact that the temptation to circumvent would be almost irresistible (heating my house when it is 30 below, etc.). This required level of cooperation has never been approached in the course of human history. No grand research project on curing a disease, no space program or development of a computer chip ever required 1/10 of 1% of what this would. It is entirely unrealistic to expect human nature to reverse itself on a dime. Just to get out of column B and over to A we would have to assume all of these things come true. The argument is akin to Marx assuming that everyone would contribute all that he could, but would only take what he needs. It's very nice, but it is a fairy tale. Back to column A (now with the assumption that we somehow attained the cooperation to jump out of column B's inaction into the action of column A), the harmful impact described by the author here is sloughed off as a nuisance. Bad economy, etc; etc; etc. This harm is terrifically undersold. It wouldn't be a bad economy, it would be no economy. We would revert back in history to a time where many people would not be able to survive. There would be opportunistic groups looking to gain power through force and coercion. There would be violence in every street, disease in every corner of the world and general chaos. This has happened to varying degrees every time and every place government has too much power and it would happen again. Progress toward every advance in technology (whether alternative energy or unrelated technology) would stagnate do to loss of incentive and the human race would be relegated to sitting around waiting for a disease to wipe us out or an asteroid to hit or some other outside factor to end our existence.

As soon as their time expires the next team can go. They would risk running into a scenario where teams beneath them selected rapidly. They could end up with the #7 or 8 pick in a matter of minutes.

I play goalie and when I do that with my stick my penalty is that I have to buy a new stick. DP has no such problem I'm sure. His stick breaking technique was excellent.

One of these years I'll get it Sept. 9 DENVER BRONCOS - Tie Sept. 16 @ Pittsburgh Steelers - Tie Sept. 23 @ New England Patriots - Tie Sept. 30 NEW YORK JETS - Tie Oct. 8 DALLAS COWBOYS - Win Oct. 21 BALTIMORE RAVENS - Would have been a tie but Willis misses a block - Win Oct. 28 @ New York Jets Tie Nov. 4 CINCINNATI BENGALS - Tie Nov. 11 @ Miami Dolphins - Win Nov. 18 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS - Tie Nov. 25 @ Jacksonville Jaguars - Tie Dec. 2 @ Washington Redskins - Tie Dec. 9 MIAMI DOLPHINS - Win Dec. 16 @ Cleveland Browns - Postponed due to flood Dec. 23 NEW YORK GIANTS - Tie Dec. 30 @ Philadelphia Eagles - Tie 4-0-11 and one makeup game which is never re-scheduled because we made the playoffs based on a tie-breaker of most ties. Mathematically I have as good a chance as anyone.

I don't really like Imus but think in this case he was more stupid than racist. I think he was basically calling the Rutgers team ugly. I don't think much of it was based on thier race but he used racist words so who knows? IMO, he should look at his own picture on the current front page of the Drudge Report before calling anyone ugly.

This thing was brutal. I know we can be paranoid as Bills fans but there simply cannot be a question that Mortenson holds a grudge against the Bills. He is incredibly unprofessional. The garbage about "they're not just losing a running back but a very special player" made me laugh out loud. To me, if we had unlimited dollars we should have retained Nate. I understand why we didn't. I like Spikes, and to a degree Fletcher but totally understand why they're gone. Last year and this year are the first time in a long time that the Bills have developed a plan and stuck to it. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. In 5 years of TD our "plan" seemed to change monthly. They drafted for need last year and will again this year. TD drafted for glamour (and maybe for Mort). The only question is what does management see as our need. My bet is that we get Turner if the price is right (2nd rounder or thereabouts) and that Willis is our target in the first. Marv and DJ have stated that we need an attacking LB.

I thought Turner was a Restricted Free Agent. That would give his agent license to talk with every team in the league. Did I miss something?

I love how they use the death of his father to sell the story. Good one.

What irony? Is there any indication whatsoever that if stem cell research had been funded by the government that Tony Snow would not have gotten cancer? Is it so hard to call a jerk a jerk? There are liberal and conservative jerks. Whoever made that t-shirt needs professional help.

I don't think the MEers will belive Iran about the waters. I do think Iran will show that they can use any excuse they want to push around the west. The MEers will believe that and that is exactly what Iran wants.

To show to the people of the Middle East that Iran is the real power in the region. They make the English soldiers look wimpy by allowing themselves to be led about like dogs. They purposely parade the woman to show that the English will not defend her. I think they could give a hoot about what the English government does or how the conflict looks around the rest of the world. If they come out looking like winners in the ME, and they will, it will further strengthen their standing over there. Making another country look wimpish helps them convince the rest of the ME that Islam can once again rule the world with Iran as its leader. It is a small step but that is the message they are trying to convey, IMO.

If that was their goal, why would they parade the english around and make them look silly and issue continuous letters of apology?

Hmmm. How would this outcry to the UN help them meet their goals?

Are you more inclined to believe the Brits or Iran regarding the location of the ship?

Why do you prefer AP over MT and a late firster? Do you feel there is that much of a gap between AP and MT? If AP were still there at 12, we could likely get a king's ransom in draft picks, move down to say 18 and still swap that for Turner and their first. That I can see. AP won't be there at 12 though.

I hate to ruin this contest for the other 63 but Martina McBride.

As much as I'd like it, I doubt it. They signed Lewis for 1 year. There is no way he is the answer for them long term anyway. He's too old for a young team. They are trying to build and need a long term option. Maybe if Quinn is still there he makes sense. 12 is a pipe dream. I don't think trading up makes sense for us unless he lasts until at least 8.

Man Jackson was running through some enormous holes. Are there OL prospects from Nebraska? From the short videos I liked Hunt, Bush and Irons. It is good to know that there will likely be a good RB available in round 2 if we elect to go that way.

It's funny they're saying stuff like that now. Murray had to know what was coming but he put out Spezza and Healtley anyway. Was he really surprised to see the Peters line out there? It seems like he put those guys out there so he could cry about it later. And he certainly is crying.

I read in the paper that Murray whined about the Sabres going after Spezza/Heatley. A good way to avoid that would have been sending out a different line. WTF did he think was going to happen?

Ear wax and bats (flying mice) are the two things to which I have irrational reactions. The sight of ear wax can make me sick to my stomach almost to the point of vomiting. I am afraid of bats to an extreme point. I would rather have a lion loose in my house than a bat.

Thanks all. Birthdays are good days to be snowed in. Work has generally been crazy and will be until the end of March. After that I'll probably be back to posting more.

So when a police department gets calls from 7 different parts of the city all saying there are boxes with blinking lights at major intersections and under bridges they should simply hang up? Good strategy.

As you say, Cops have to take appropriate measures. Odds are very strong that when the reports were called in the caller didn't identify the cartoon characters on the box but just identified it as a box with blinking lights. Once the cop saw the box, let's call it a 1% chance it was a bomb or other harmful device. If the 1% chance panned out, the same people now saying cops overreacted would likely be accusing them of not taking a threat seriously. The cops can't win. They do and should follow procedures. If someone thinks the procedure manual should contain an exception clause for blinking cartoons then they should make the suggestion. The press picks up on some things and does not pick up on others. That doesn't make things the fault of cops. Similarly, because something is so popular that it was featured on CSI really does not amount to a hill of beans in terms of how cops should react. The people at fault are either the advertisers who did not get proper permission or the city for not communicating that permission to the police. The police are not at fault here IMO.

So the police get several calls all reporting (probably with little or no detail) that there are lighted boxes near multiple bridges and important intersections. What are they supposed to do? Ignore it? Get there and see they are lit up like cartoons and assume everything's ok? Give me a break. If the advertisers got a city permit then the city should have let the cops know. If not, they should face the consequences of putting the police in a no win situation.