Andrew in CA

I studied in Cape Town but have a friend that studied in Sydney a year later- I visited him for about 10 days, and it was a great city, he really loved it too. I'd recommend heading to New Zealand at some point if you can, I thought it was even cooler than Australia. Since the exchange rate is favorable, you should be in good shape money-wise, ie it shouldn't be too pricey. Try to bring as little as possible and buy what you need while you're there. Other than that, I would agree with everything EZCBoston wrote. Most of all, appreciate every day of it- the situation is so unique and you'll never be able to experience anything like it again.

This blog entry from Tim Graham suggests that McCargo's return might not be welcomed- http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-4-96/....html?post=true If McCargo has motivation issues, this is the final straw- either an attempted trade motivates him or he crawls into his shell, never to return.

I like the cut of your jib, Pete

See, I don't know about this. If anything, I would see the new party being a more socially conservative party- it seems to me that many dissatisfied voters in the flyover states want more social conservatism and ignore, put up with, or support an expanding, spending government.

Yeah, another effect of getting TG in there for the next 3 years would be that we could put off drafting a TE for another year or 2. DE, C, OLB all need to be addressed as well as TE, so giving up a 3rd rounder for a quality player at a need position for the next 3 years is worth it not only for production, but for giving the Bills some more flexibility come draft day.

That's a good assessment. Their run game was all but ignored in favor of having an elite player try to win every game- without quality receivers, this cannot work, and it did not. No balance last year. I agree with you though that his demeanor and tools give him a bright future in the NFL.

Yeah, I can definitely see why anyone that saw him only in the losses from last year would be down on him- he played extremely poorly in the Maryland game, admittedly. Keep an eye on him though- he's gonna be around awhile

Yeah, that game sucked last year. In his defense, BC had terrible receivers. However, I've seen every game he played in college, and I never had any doubt he would be a quality NFL QB- just not this fast.

This ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri1Kl-5YZgY...feature=related ) didn't impress you?

Ryan's gonna be good for a long, long time. He has the perfect mien for the NFL, and the pocket presence to go with it.

I'm not sure what you mean- here is the link to the always sunny full episode page- http://www.hulu.com/search/It%27s+Always+S...mp;type=episode Scroll down to find Season 3, Ep. 1- Mac & Dee find a dumpster baby... friggin classic!

It's my favorite show currently on TV. Charlie is one of the best characters of all time. Go to hulu.com- it's free and legal- they have every episode, including this season's.

Thank you for a fair and unpatronizing response. I suppose we do differ on that point. The fact that Odinga urged violence is deplorable in that I don't think it was necessary and therefore the violence was not justified. However, in the situation that Kenya and its citizens found itself in- an election that had finally broken the ruling party's 50 year reign of absolute power was wiped out because of massive election fraud- it is wholly understandable that the response would be violence. It is also understandable for the head of that defeated party, after realizing that peaceable, fair elections was not going to achieve any sort of change, ie that Kenya's "democracy" was anything but, would take the next step to change- violent reaction to demonstrate to the ruling party that the unrepresented citizens of Kenya would no longer take it. Now, like I said, since I don't believe violence was the only option left, I don't condone it. Whether or not Odinga is a real leader is up for interpretation, so I can see where your objection comes from in that respect. However, to object to Obama's meeting with both parties to try and broker a peace deal seems strange to me. From what I read at the time, I cannot recall Obama praising Odinga's response or anything that would suggest that he also condoned the violence. To meet with the leadership of the two main parties in that situation to help mediate an agreement to stop the violence seems like the most appropriate response to me.

I addressed this in another thread but you didn't respond- Why is meeting with Odinga objectionable?

http://www.democracynow.org/ Democracy Now had a report on voter fraud and even had Brunner on for a ten minute interview. I haven't gotten to that interview yet, but the entire piece seems pretty relevant to this discussion.

It is my understanding that Obama's trip to Kenya was to help facilitate the peace process to end the violence after the fraudulent election earlier this year. I would not be surprised if he supported Odinga's position over Kibaki's, but I haven't heard that. I don't understand why this is such an objectionable thing.

So you're saying that our elections are as fraudulent, ie independent sources verifying the fraud, as Kenya's? That seems to be the premise of your conclusion re: Obama. I dare say, if either party in the United States had been in power since 1957 (let alone our nation's inception), and the other party had by all accounts finally, and fairly, broken through, there'd be blood in the streets. I do not condone the violence, but I stand by the statement that it is easy to see why a nation can turn to violence when its democratic process is revealed as a sham. So, the logic of my statement is: unrepresented citizens for 50 years plus actual fair victory plus total denial of that victory and of the rule of law = understanding, not a jusitification, but an understanding of violent reaction. Also, I am not a supporter of Obama, so don't try claiming I'm a "lemming" or whatever. It seems silly to me to use Obama's relationship with Odinga against him.

Raila Odinga is the head of a party that by all accounts won the Kenyan national elections but was denied victory by the ruling party, a party that has been in power since Kenya's inception. You can make the case that he exacerbated the violence thereafter, but it is easy to see that violence had become a last resort for any Kenyan not affiliated with the majority party. Are you upset with Obama because Odinga is a socialist or because of the violent aftermath of a fraudulent election that Odinga won?

I third that. Just stupid and annoying as hell.

That was aired on Saturday night.

:lol: I forgot about that one!

George: So, what's going on with you and Melanie? I mean, I know you're not getting married, but uh, things are happening? Jerry: Well...actually, we kind of broke up. George: You what? Jerry: Well, you know, we were having dinner the other night, and she's got this strangest habit. She eats her peas one at a time. You've never seen anything like it. It takes her an hour to finish them. I mean, we've had dinner other times. I've seen her eat Corn Niblets. But she scooped them. George: . . . she scooped her niblets? Jerry: Yes. That's what was so vexing. HAL: What is that smell? ELAINE: What smell? HAL: I think it's the mattress. Did something happen to it. ELAINE: No no, oh, you know what that is? I um, went claming the other day and I forgot to hose off my boots. HAL: Claming? ELAINE: Yeah, clam and scallop. I clam and scallop.

Common Sense is a bimonthly (thereabouts) political commentary podcast. I really like Carlin's style and I agree with his approach to analysis. Anyway, the latest episode was regarding the bilious nature of political discourse, and I think it will ring true for a lot of people- you can get the podcast here ( http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/cs ) or at ITunes.

No ONE lost the game, but the entire pass D and pass rush lost the game. Why they didn't attempt to maul Warner with secondary and LB blitzes throughout the game is beyond me. Warner had all the time in the world to toss today and he did with precision. WHen the turnovers started piling up, it was too late. JP played a JP game, which is he was not winning it for the team but he wasnt losing it either, until it was too late.

I disagree. The D had all but lost the game by the time the turnovers and boneheaded plays started piling up. Any excuse regarding TE's absence is moot. The team needed the D to play big when the QB went down, and they failed.