OGTEleven

Did I write that or just think it? I couldn't tell if I was reading or typing.

1) I agree that all good candidates should get a fair shake, but I'm not sure any specific practice will achieve this. What will achieve it is minority coaches kicking the butts of the teams that didn't consider them. It's sorta the free market in action. 2) I think they should refuse interviews they think are a sham. In Shell's case, as an official within the league, I'm not sure this was an option. This stinks to me of the NFL helping a team abide by a rule for the sake of looking good. After the Mariucci thing, it would look bad if Saban was just hired, but let's face it.... No one else wants to bother, the NFL taps Shell on the shoulder..... L, A, M, E. The worrisome part is that the rule ends up putting the minority guys in a bind. If they publicly refuse an interview (or maybe even privately), they may lose a chance to climb a rung on the ole boy network ladder. It could hurt them from actually being considered by another team down the line. "He didn't play along in the miami process, so don't interview him for the next slot." 3) I'd rather see good results than good intentions any day. I'm not buying this rule achieving results. 4) Mostly agreed. Bates is as much the "token interim coach interview" as Shell is the "token minority interview". It doesn't make it right. 5) I hope Jerry Gray is working until February. 6) How is this different than 3? 7) I'm not sure this is true. It seems to me there are 3 categories that get HCs hired. Hot coordinators, re-treads, hot college coaches. I can't remember Herman E's status, but the other two were hot coordinators (I think HE was as well). Marvin Lewis was VERY hot, even Saban-like, every team in the league would have given him a look for an opening. To me, HE exudes confidence and organization moreso than most coaches. I'm sure this was known throughout the league and made him a top candidate. You may be right on Smith. He was a good coordinator, but not killer (at least not in my book). Maybe the rule got him a look, maybe not. He seems to be doing ok so far. I'll add an 8. The category minorities will be hired from is Hot coord. Re-treads like Denny Green and college HCs are few and far between. I don't know the numbers but it seems to me that there a fair and growing number of minority coords out there. As far as I know, there is no interview rule for these positions but the system is improving. Maybe this says something about what will come about gradually with HCs. The HCs are very pragmatic in hiring coords. I can buy that there is still some racism in hiring HCs, but the best way to fix it in my view is by forcing the owners to become pragmatic. When a guy like Marvin Lewis comes along, this clearly already happens in a hurry, but only one of the 3 channels is open now (hot coords), there aren't many re-treads floating around and the NFL can't fix the NCAAs problems so I think it will be gradual. Do I get the Barry Brady award yet?

That was cool of you to teach them some TBD lingo.

How about another music city miracle (this time make it legitimate) just for good measure?

It's sorta football becuase it involves the miami dolphins (capitalization of their city or name is not allowed in this thread so if you want to do it, start your own). The miami dolphins sorta play football. It's sorta politics because it involves minority hiring practices. It's sorta neither beacuse it is really a farce. It is clear the stinking fish want saban as their head coach. That's ok I guess, but it makes him look pretty stupid if you ask me. Art Shell interviewed for the job yesterday. What is his current job you ask? VP of football operations for the NFL. Is it possible that no other black coach wanted to bother because they knew the result? Is it possible that the league sent in Shell to save face? Does this make the league look two faced to you? CYA if there ever was. Does the NFL's policy help? What do you think? I don't think it helps. Saban may or may not be the best coach available but any coach (black or white) that accepts the miami job loses credibility to me. How could a coach with bad enough judgement to take that job be the best candidate? P.S. I am fully aware that sorta is not a word.

It's a classic trap game. P.S. I didn't need that snot anyway.

I guess he was just trying to give Ferguson a ticket to heaven.

Yes. Division ties are decided first. The Bills would beat the Jets. The tie between the Bills and Jags would then decide only the seeding. The Jags would be 5, the Bills 6.

Here's a bit of positive: Found? The baby deserves a mom, but at least was found.

Maybe Takeo could get a commercial like Holyfield and Charlie Steiner did, but instead of chasing Steiner, he could chase a fricken post padder.

You always go for those beady eyed broads. What else do you see in her?

Maybe Takeo could get a commercial like Holyfield and Charlie Steiner did.

You're pathetic and childish. A woman like that and all you can think about is having a chickenfight? Oh, wait, never mind.

Why didn't you give me this information before I took the SATs? I missed the following question: Pandas are to Jay Rosen as _______ is/are to DC Tom: A) His wife B)Pygmy Elephants C) Chewbakka D) The study of all sorts of crap that I don't care about. I went with D. It was the only one I missed.

Well, in your original post of this thread, you implied it was (at least partially) because "creation science" was nudging something aside. My guess is that 4th graders are taught neither evolution nor creation science. Even if they were only taught evolution, as you'd advocate, this would likely not help their math scores. Further, in an old thread, I suggested that maybe more time be spent on the three r's instead of condoms and I got the sense you did not agree. Based on this, I figured I throw in a wise @$$ comment.

No, It's not fair, and your description of your previous arguments is accurate. What never came up in that other thread is the value/detriment of condom/contraception discussions in clasrroms. Your focus was on condoms being given to students, which is perfectly fair (as a point of focus). My complaint here is about time being spent in schools putting condoms on cucumbers (literally). I believe that is far more widespread that the hand out programs. I am lazy and don't feel like looking it up, but I know they teach that stuff in the schools systems here whereas they don't hand out condoms. I see this as just a big time waster (getting us further behind Japan, etc.) as you see talking about ID.

Becoming more God like does not mean becoming God. It means getting ever closer. My example was a bit of a stretch or at least I should have given more detail. What I meant is that we are getting smarter and smarter, and if we discover we are actually changing (evolving), that should be accepted by the religous groups. So what if we turn into those bulbous headed alien things. If we are getting smarter and discovering more about how to help each other, God should be pleased. This explains Elway's last two Super Bowls. Would crowns work for Bledsoe/Losman? You could be on to something. There seems to be a pretty big market for the fish with feet that have the word Darwin in them. If that is not mockery, I don't know what is. Mockery may not have been the intent of scientists and or schools, but it is certainly the result. There are many examples, but the fish is stark and direct. I am not a scientist so it is pointless to argue this. My main question about evolution personally has to do with time. There are big differences between man and apes. There are missing links in the chain. The "smell-test" problem I have is with the amount of time that has past over which all of these changes supposedly took place. Is it truly enough time? When I compare evolution to, let's say the type of physics taught at the high school level, it seems to me that physics paints a more complete picture for the student. "If I roll this ball down a ramp of x degress, how far will it travel forward before it falls 4 feet?" It is very predictive. The same idea holds for chemistry. These sciences, and more importantly their methods of data collection and experiment are very useful tools for a HS student. I'm not sure I see the same value in teaching a science less complete in its measurement techniques and predictive capabilities to such young students. It certainly has its place in universities when students become more diversified in their endeavors. I'm not even saying it doesn't belong in HS, just that it is a fair question. For me it further comes in to question when you see "evolutionists" mocking "religious types" and the mockery becoming part of our pop culture. I doubt true scientists would want this result and I think when they saw it, they would take steps to lessen that result. I don't see any such steps being taken. I only see them being resisted, with no alternatives offered.

Our kids are too busy putting condoms on cucumbers to bother with either religion or math.

...or one accepts the current version of evolution as fully informed. It's nice that you have decided what should go on in science class. Other people disagree and they also pay taxes. Maybe if schools weren't run by the government, we wouldn't have to have so many arguments, and we could all decide which school we would like our kids to attend. I agree. Especially with the bold part. This will always be true. This from the chief PPP advocate of "Cucumber condom 101"?

Thanks for a well thought out reply. My issue with the "religious" and "scientific" crowds is in the one area where they agree. They both seem to think that their beliefs/theories are mutually exclusive. They may give lip service to some level of compatiblity, but it is clear that both sides believe the other to be worthless. This has nothing to do with the search for truth that both science and religion are supposed to be about. God could not have created a world/universe where things evolve? Give me a break. A proof of evolution would mean there is no God? Common man! If evolution is real, we are progressing and improving the species constantly right? In other words we are becoming more God like (at a snail's pace, but hey.). Isn't that what the religious folks want? My question was meant to point out that some (IMO many) on the "scientific" side want evolution to disprove God. This in itself goes against the very method of science they espouse as the answer. There should be no desire involved, only fact. The "religious" side counters by attempting to drown out evolution by piling on with myriad alternate "theories". This goes against religion being a search for truth because such a search would not fear evolution. IMO, the whole thing is a big joke. The scientists have an agenda to mock believers because they fear a God. They are trying to use the school systems to do it. That is why evolution is so prominent in curriculums even though it has not met the standards to which other scientific theories are held. The believers have an agenda to drown out scientists because they have weak faith. They doubt whether their beliefs will hold up against science and feel compelled to refute every facet of evolution including the existence of dinosaurs. Both camps claim to be in search of the truth. Hardy har har.

This guy should apply: Kabul airport my @$$!

How does evolution meet this definition? I can give it the benefit of the doubt to some extent on "explaining how things happen" but it is still replete with missing links in its theories (pun intended). With that said what does it do to predict future events? Physics class teaches a lot there as does chemistry, but evolution? "Continued adaptation to one's environment" is a little vague, no? Disclaimer: This post is not meant to contrast evolution with ID or creationism (I think there will always have to be faith to believe in God, and I think God made it that way on purpose.) The post is meant to measure evolution as meeting the definition of science.

I bet you never saw pass interference called on a Hail Mary. I bet you never saw defensive holding called on a field goal attempt. I bet you never saw a Hall of Fame player be judged to be in "control of the puck before it leaves the crease" even though he had to look around for it before shooting it into the net to win the Stanley cup while out of shape 50 year olds in my beer league can kick it to their stick and shoot it without looking. I bet you never saw back to back inside the park home runs in a major league game (I did, in person).

Claiming racism is very easy. If it was the hispanic woman's husband getting the death penalty instead of Peterson, I'm sure you'd be on here whining about only minorities getting the death penalty while the white guy (Peterson) doesn't. You can spin it any way you want. The Peterson case has nothing to do with the other case. Do you think Peterson got what he deserved?

I could only listen to yesterday's game but I have a guess about something. They did a direct snap play to Freddie Smith. For anyone who saw the play, did it look at all like it ciould be a setup for later in the year where he throws a pass from the same set?