Jon in Pasadena

That would go against the Bills' tradition of letting their best players go for nothing, and needing to use a high draft pick to fill the holes they create.

That would possibly be the only pay-for-view event I'd ever shell out $$ to see.

We're lulling them into a false sense of security.

Yeah, gale force wind conditions are the perfect time to start flinging the pigskin all over the place.

We gonna cover this Evans dude, or what?

If there's any karma at all, the sideline official will get run over and squashed later in the game for that BLATANT non-call.

Hate bacon. Always have. I like brussels sprouts, broccoli, spinach. Peas, not so much.

Thought that went without saying...I was just economizing on posts & combined chuckle & serious reply, only I forgot the chuckle part.

Still works out to $10K / household. I wouldn't turn it down. I'll need a car soon, when my soon-to-be 16 year old Saturn finally bites the dust.

I get 11.5 trillion -- I think you're off by a factor of 10.

...And committing arson. </Hogboy>

He needs to tie it onto a crossbow bolt and staple the thing to Walt "Just Give it to Them" Coleman's !@#$ing chest.

This could come in handy. May I have your address?

What I'm hearing is that they'd most likely challenge on the 14th: since some gay couple have already been granted marriages, with all the associated rights and privileges, how can you now deny others the same rights/privileges without violating the equal protection clause? It will doubtless take a while to work its way through the system.

That's very exciting, but we were talking about Tiger Woods. Try to keep up!

You do realize that it's in the job description of those !@#$ing judges (California Supreme Court) to rule on the constitutionality of laws in the State of California, right? And their ruling (which you are free to disagree with) was that the previous law was UN-constitutional, regardless of how many people voted for it. That's how the process works. That's why this time it was framed as an amendment to the State Constitution - to make it impossible for the CSC to over-rule it on those grounds. Now, I guess, it would need to be appealed at the Federal level (state constitutions cannot violate the U.S. constitution)

One serious mo-fo of a golfer, apparently. I read on wiki that Eldrick's on pace for winnings totalling $1B by 2010

Did Fiji annex Thailand when I wasn't looking?

John, I understand your point and I know you are trying to be the best father you can be to your kids, just as I am to mine. One of the many system shocks I've endured this year has been the realization that, after I slick back my boy's hair and watch him boldly march off to join his new friends and classmates in Kindergarten, there's simply a whole new universe of things he's going to be exposed to before/without my participation. Some are likely to be earlier than I'd like in an ideal world, and in some cases I may have to scramble to catch up, but I have a ton of confidence in him & his little brother. The kids are alright.

If the issue was really about banning teaching gay marriage in elementary school, the ballot prop should have been about banning that. It wasn't. The two biggest sources of funding for YES on 8 were: 1) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 2) Knights of Columbus

OK, "your daddy and a bunch of other people". For teaching history?

This is true but.. What is there now to prevent an elementary school teacher from teaching kids that "For four months, back in 2008, it was legal for same-sex couples to get married...until your daddy took away their rights!"

How on earth are they going to possibly enforce that? My marriage certificate has no mention of either party's sex.

For what it's worth, (and I am not a lawyer so this is just a WAG), I'd bet that it won't invalidate the tens of thousands of same-sex marriages that have already been performed, or will be shortly in the scramble before the vote is certified, and the amendment is officially enacted. For better or for worse, those marriages were/will have been legal at the time they were performed. And ex post facto laws normally don't cut it. FWIW, I am the father of a kindergartner, and I am not at all concerned about the extremely remote possibility of him being taught about same-sex marriage in school. I am, however, concerned that they're already teaching him abstract graphs and Venn diagrams. I don't recall much of my own kindergarten days, but I'm pretty sure we didn't go much further than petting bunnies and making applesauce.

Well...it's high time I set sail for the ranch. I'll try not to run my car off the road when the radio announcers spaz out over the inevitable...