Saturday College Football OpenThread

The picks: Kentucky -3 1/2 over Western Kentucky, Syracuse +9 over Penn State, Alabama -21 over Virginia Tech, LSU -3 over TCU, Washington -3 over Boise State, Temple +31 over Notre Dame, Mississippi State +13 over Oklahoma State, California +6 1/2 over Northwestern, Arkansas -10 over UL Lafayette, Georgia -3 over Clemson, Auburn -14 over Washington State, Buffalo U vs. Ohio State, Over 54, Florida International +22 over Maryland. ALL 2 units.

EPL Special - Manchester City (-1) over Hull in First Half.

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

< Friday Open Thread | Obama Asks Congress for Syria Strike Approval >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Times (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 08:01:24 AM EST
    reports that some are saying that Obama's plan to attack Syria might result in more anti-Americanism and could further destabilize the region.

    Obama is so "confident", that he is not reported to want to wait until the UN experts have made their analysis and presented their conclusions.

    Once again, we're in a rush.

    No time for Congress to consider and debate.
    No time for the people of the US to express their feelings.
    In the UK, there was time. They said forget it.

    So - Obama is not reportedly interested in the people, via their elected representatives, having a say-so because it is not likely to go his way.

    And what is his way? He wants to bomb because of his "red line" statement. His credibility in on the line, sayeth he and his spokespeople.

    I care no more about saving Obama's credibility, of which he has none, than I did about saving Johnson's face during the Vietnam war.

    The people with their hands on the nuclear button are infantile.
    Dangerously so. This is not a comment on real infants who have innately more sense than this crew.

    And then there's Kerry - out front at last. Going for 2016. Happy as a clam as he Powells us.

    What is the hurry?
    Why not at least wait until the UN inspectors have made their findings known? Because, they, this administration, just want to do this thing. Maybe O is feeling that his second term is winding down, and he still hasn't had a chance to order a bunch of bombers into the air.
    Drones is one things, but this would be a real RUSH.

    The whole issue of chemical and biological weapons is, of course, important. But in a era in which we are circling the globe with enough nukes to wipe everyone out - to kill every living soul in one coup - the issue should be dismantling all of these monsters, and not selecting just the one that the "enemy" has chosen as their own.

    Even so, if chemical weapons are the issue that Obama wants to use as his rationale for further embroiling us in these internal conflicts, he should wait until all the facts are in from the UN inspectors. He should not be chasing them out as he is currently doing.

    In the guise of humanitarianism, he is making even more enemies for us. And when the body count is revealed after his exercise in Bush regalia, I don't like to think about the frenzy in the level of hatred that will be directed towards us.

    My bullsh*t alarm really sounded... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 10:11:47 AM EST
    ...when they started rejected Syria's offer to let the inspectors in at all, saying it was too little too late, as if the evidence of chemical or bio attacks just, poof, vanishes after three days. It was right then that they proved to be as full of sh*t as those they are supposedly trying to "teach a lesson" to.

    Dopes, all of them, and malevolently so.


    Absolutely. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    My alarm went off too.
    Deja vu once again. Same as Bush chasing out the UN inspectors.

    Evidence of chemical weaponry does not just disappear from the bloodstream of its victims.

    I must admit that this action really frightens me.

    Bush at least spent a little time bullsh-tting everybody - lying and lining up support even though on false premises and lies.

    Obama isn't even going that far.
    He's just going to do what he is going to do.
    He isn't the least bit interested in support or lack of it from the emaciated American people for whom he, as Bush, has unbridled contempt.


    He wouldn't be the first (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    Redline statement President who strong armed in a different manner than militarily.

    I wonder today if this doesn't have something to do with Putin thumbing his nose at him over other things.

    Russia moved two war ships into the Med.  Professional analysts continue to predict it is show, nothing to fear.  What my household worries about?  It only takes one shot, and then everything is changed.  Putin continues to publicly spar with Obama's factual statements.


    The Guardian is live-blogging the (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    developments around the world, including that Obama is due to make a statement any moment now - a statement that will not, allegedly, declare imminent military action.

    The coverage is here.

    I find this coverage to be much more informative, overall, than pretty much anything else I've looked at.


    Obama speaking in the Rose Garden now: (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:55:27 PM EST
    Over 1,000 murdered, several hundred were children.

    Danger to our security.  Mockery of CW bans.

    We must take military action.  No boots on the ground.  Confident we can hold Assad accountable.

    Prepared to strike whenever we choose.  

    Wow - will seek authorization for the use of force from Congress.  This is news.
    The cynical part of me says he wouldn't be doing this if he hadn't been guaranteed the votes.


    He gave me every single thing I wanted (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    I am faxing my Christmas list to White House now.  And he doesn't have to win anything either.  He reserved his right to make a final Presidential call on Syria.  I turned the news on and they are talking complete BULL.  I suppose in order to have something to boost ratings with.

    He is not hemmed in, and the House will not "embarrass him".  How stupid.  You want to say stupid things and make idiot votes while the world is discussing chemical weapons?  Knock yourselves out.  I'll have diaries to write for weeks if I feel inclined.


    Apparently our Pres. disputes the death toll (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Provided by Doctors Without Borders.

    Republican play signaled via Inhofe? (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    "Our military has no money left," Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

    Due to the $500 billion in budget cuts slated for the Pentagon over the next decade, the Obama White House "further undermines future military readiness and capabilities" to deal with the growing crisis in Syria and elsewhere in the world, according to Inhofe.

    "I cannot support military action in Syria unless the President presents to Congress his broader strategy in the region that addresses our national security interests and the budget to support it," the Oklahoma Republican said in the statement. link

    Wonder what will be sacrificed here in U.S.to pay for restoring and increasing the Penagon budget.


    He's an idiot (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    I wouldn't listen to him much.  He has zero pull, zero affect, he's just blowing hot air without a new Dubya Bush in office.

    Will this be his vote though? Love it, make that statement and vote No :)

    He's literally saying our military is too broke to look after our national security then.  That pi$$e$ the Pentagon off, you never say come get us...we are weak.


    Well another idiot weighed in (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    using the same talking point later in the week.

    Budget issues are expected to be the top order of business when Congress returns from recess in September, and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) raised the question of military costs in a letter to President Obama this week. Several lawmakers echoed the concern on a conference call Thursday with top administration officials.

    "Does the administration intend to submit a supplemental appropriations request to Congress, should the scope and duration of the potential military strikes exceed the initial planning?" Boehner asked.

    link h/t squeaky

    I hope this accompanies their NO vote (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    The Pentagon will immediately weigh in and say BULL.

    What makes you so confident (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:26:09 PM EST
    that Obama won't negotiate a bipartisan deal on this (IOW give away the store)? That would be in line with his SOP.

    You think that he would (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    Give Republicans more military funds for a vote going along with Syria authorization?

    Yes, I think that there is a (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:35:11 PM EST
    better than 50/50 chance he would if they demanded it as a requirement for voting yes.  

    Or some reslution of the upcoming debt limit (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    deadline. But he really may say, hey, your guy W waged two wars off the books. Why are you bringing this up now, House GOP?

    He could (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    but that line of reasoning hasn't worked real well so far. Raising the debt limit for Dubya would be a prime example.

    During Bush Presidency, Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion

    Here is an article with numerous people discussing that action against Syria would make it very difficult to keep the sequester in place. The article is slanted more towards giving Obama the edge to get his package deal through but I'm more inclined to think that it will just impact the military. Some quotes from the article.

    Steve Bell, a budget expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said if the U.S. moves forward with military action, it will underline the arguments of those who say keeping the sequester in place impairs U.S. military readiness.

    "I think it has the possibility of advancing fiscal talks, I really do," he said.

    He argued that if strikes against Syria are launched, it will be "very, very difficult to insist" on the defense sequester.

    "Under those circumstances, I can see a [2014 continuing resolution] that would contain full funding for defense," he said.

    The White House has been banking on defense hawks within the GOP breaking ranks with Tea Party conservatives and embracing a debt deal that includes some higher taxes and reverses cuts to domestic programs. link

    Could it give Obama the edge to push his grand bargain through or would it just result in more domestic cuts to offset a larger military budget?


    I understand why you may fear this (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:46:17 PM EST
    In military standoff though, and that is where things are and we are even in standoff somewhat with Russia, you never make claims of military weakness.

    Even if they stood up there and made such claims when a President was seeking military authorization a rain of debunkers from all areas would clobber them immediately.

    Any legislator making such claims when they are not true is forever labeled a national security risk, and they are.  But the Pentagon itself will never allow either one of these idiots to stand up there and say such things during an authorization vote when they have carriers at risk surrounding Syria.  Such crazy statements invite attack.  Such legislators are not to be trusted, and when you are a Republican and the Pentagon doesn't trust you you are truly effed.


    As to your last sentence, is such a member (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    of Congress adversely effected as to funds for that district?  Less confidential info?  

    What Repubs feel brave enough to risk it? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:18:19 PM EST
    Just to try to make Obama look bad?  Does the Republican party want to be the party that the Pentagon calls the party that risks national security for purely political reasons?  Retired Generals have long memories and a long list of boards they sit on :)

    I am fine if they stand up there and say that, cuz I know what comes next.


    Evidently I'm not the only one that (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    thinks that this action will help restore (and possibly increase) the military budget. It would be interesting to see how it plays out, if I didn't fear that more sacrifices would be demanded of those who can least afford to sacrifice.  

    I would prefer that you are right in your assessment. Guess we will have to wait and see.


    Well, it doesn't mean they aren't going to ask (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    For more money, they just aren't going to ask for it then :)

    A couple of months later, the tomahawks will have to be replaced and I think it takes about 18 months to replace one, take it from start to arriving on a vessel.


    Go Obama (none / 0) (#68)
    by Visteo1 on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 12:58:18 PM EST
    Go Obama +80 over Park the Tanks

    Anyone giving odds on the vote?


    not feetsball (none / 0) (#19)
    by Amiss on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    but I agree mostly with your feelings. Makes him no better,perhaps worse than Bush, because of no support.

    Go Gators!!

    So sorry Pats let TT go.


    oculus culture vulture betting primer (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 08:47:08 AM EST
    That out of the ordinary one BTD threw in there today:

    Buffalo U vs. Ohio State, over 54

    Not sure if that was in your 2012 lesson plan. It means he is betting that more than 54 points will be scored by both teams combined.

    2013 tally prior to today:

    BTD: 2-6... -7 units
    visteo1: 2-6... -4 units
    CoralGables: 1-1... even

    Donald... you know you want to jump in taking a mid-major

    So, when you gonna do us up some (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:56:05 AM EST
    Diaries so we can fatten our savings?

    I pick so few games I'd be boring (none / 0) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    most of my time is spent running, eating, amd sleeping.

    Even the Oregon "over" scares me tonight. With a new coach it's hard to invest in what he might do based on past performance.


    Is BTD unwilling to put his money (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    on Michigan over Central Michigan?  Is Shoelaces still the quarterback?  

    Denard (shoelace) Robinson (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    now plays for the Jacksonville Jaguars.

    Ah. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    59 to 5. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:50:40 PM EST
    Boo. (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:20:03 PM EST
    Late Games...fun ONLY, (none / 0) (#25)
    by Visteo1 on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    SDSU -14 over EIU
    NW -5.5 over Cal
    ISU -9.5 over NIU (Iowa)
    UK -4.5 over WKU
    USM -8 over TXST

    Where is my Aggie Fan? (none / 0) (#71)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    We are the only two people I know that want to gloat over Longhorns and Aggies both winning!

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 113 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:15:35 AM EST
    They even know what kind of ride God respects. So amazing. (link)

    Volume 112
    Volume 111

    Phuck the roof and raise the floor! Happy Saturday, my friends.

    The way that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:31:56 AM EST
    is fulfilling his promise to consult with Congress about bombing Syria is to "brief" both parties in the Senate and tell them what he is going to do with or without their consent.

    This man is dangerous.

    LOL! That's over the top, dude. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:46:48 PM EST
    How over the top? THIS over the top.

    Dangerous? (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    "Having said all that, Assad is still killing. The opposition is increasingly being represented by Al Qaeda extremist elements."

    President Obama, who had faced criticism for not acting more assertively, ordered the freezing of all Syrian assets within American jurisdiction, banned imports of Syrian oil and barred American citizens from having any business dealings with the Syrian government, which the administration once courted in the hopes of improving relations....

    ...mounting criticism from many in Congress, advocates of Syrian democracy and others that the United States and other nations had responded too tepidly to the violent suppression of protests that have swept Syrian cities for five months.

    The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the conflict and after President Bashar al-Assad's eventual removal.

    Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus presented the proposal to the White House, according to administration officials. But with the White House worried about the risks, and with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, they were rebuffed.

    "President Obama can no longer ignore calls from congressional leaders in both parties to take more assertive steps," Romney said Sunday. "The [Kofi] Annan `peace' plan -- which President Obama still supports -- has merely granted the Assad regime more time to execute its military onslaught. The United States should work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves."  ......

    .....Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, with whom Romney celebrated Memorial Day, is a vocal proponent of arming the rebels.

    "There's always, `We don't know who they are.' I'll tell you who they are. They're a direct repudiation of Al Qaeda," McCain said three weeks ago. "Al Qaeda believes in acts of terror to change governments. These people believe in peaceful demonstration."

    War is Expensive???? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    Bohner is worried that military action in Syria will be too expensive...  I have never heard of a Republican complain about money when it comes to war or any military expenditure.

    What a load.

    House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) raised the question of military costs in a letter to President Obama this week.

    since when has tight money ever stopped the GOP from military spending:

    House Republicans have shown they are unable to muster their majority to approve even the most routine bills to fund the general workings of government.

    I am really happy to hear the GOP (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    oppose our Pres. on the issue of our military intervening in Syria. Let's cut off Egypt while we're at it.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    Maybe it is time to take the full bore libertarian approach international, and call for eliminating the ban on Chemical Weapons.

    Russia is in line with the GOP regarding military strike, so now quid pro quo the GOP needs to step up to the plate with Russia and lobby to remove the stink on using CWs.

    And while we are at it get rid of the UN.


    Van Jones is going to do Crossfire (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:57:36 PM EST
    With Newt Gingrich?  That's disturbing, false equivalency.

    I haven't watched Crossfire (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    since before Jon Stewart took them to the woodshed.

    I would watch Crossfire with Van Jones (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    But I can't watch it if he gives any credence to Newt Gingrich.  I could end up taking a bat to the television

    Poor kids scrubbing school toilets (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:07:51 PM EST
    MT (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 07:11:36 PM EST
    on my run today I got to thinking...what if I gave MT bad advice on the chocolate milk? So I googled "chocolate milk nutritional value" when I got back home ...

    and this was the first hit

    I can now rest easy knowing I didn't lead a fellow runner astray.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 114 (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 08:36:12 AM EST
    RIP, Sir David Frost (1939-2013); (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 07:47:33 PM EST
    The gregarious British media personality, who in 1977 compelled former President Richard Nixon to explain himself and then apologize to the American people for Watergate, died of a heart attack yesterday aboard the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth.

    Nixon, who was paid $600,000 for the series of interviews with Frost, was seeking to redeem his reputation and return to public life, and thought that Frost was an ingratiating lightweight who could be easily handled and manipulated.

    But over the course of an historic twelve hours of interviews over several days that became fascinating theatre, Frost instead patiently cajoled a clearly reluctant Nixon into a detailed and at times cathartic first-hand recounting of his presidency and its downfall. And in so doing, Frost pressed for and then elicited from the former president perhaps the closest thing to an admission of guilt and an apology for wrongdoing as the American public was likely to ever receive from him.

    Aloha to a fascinating character in his own right, who managed to put Richard Nixon squarely in our rear view mirrors, and invited us to drive off and consign him to the dustbin of history.

    David Frost also played a big part (none / 0) (#70)
    by Nemi on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 06:43:49 AM EST
    in various satirical programs such as 'That Was The Week That Was' or as it was also called 'TWTWTW' ... or 'TW3':

    Arriving just in time for the Profumo affair, TW3 gained a reputation for savage satire.  It witnessed and commented on all the major events of the time, including producing a special, non-satirical, edition as a tribute following the assassination of President Kennedy.
    With the satire came a vast numbers of complaints.  Nonetheless the BBC kept the show on for two series, only finally bowing to the inevitable when the perceived need to avoid political controversy during the run-up to the 1964 General Election resulted in the programme being halted.

    It was never re-commissioned but nonetheless proved the inspiration for every satirical show that followed it.

    (Emphasis mine.)


    Betting the over on the OSU and Buffalo... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    ...is like betting the under at the Bob Hope Desert Classic.

    Crossover gridiron golf fans will get this birdie of a joke.

    Here's a combination (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    of a betting line I've never seen.

    Oregon opened -58
    The over/under opened 58½


    I like the over (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 10:59:28 AM EST
    Gotta love the over (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    Can we both get the TL over at 58.5?

    And with that TD (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    The Ducks cover the "over" midway thru the 4th quarter as they take a 59-3 lead.

    What does all that mean, CG? (none / 0) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:04:22 PM EST
    I've never understood the concept of "over/under". Can you explain it?

    Also, with Oregon at -58, does that mean that Nichols State is spotted 58 points, the idea being that the Ducks will win by at least 59?


    Over/Under (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    The over/under is the total points that will be scored in the game. You can pick either side. The number is for the combined point totals for both teams. If you take the over you need more than that number scored. Take the under and you need it to be less.

    As for the -58. Yes, If you take Oregon, you technically start the game trailing 58-0. If you were to take Nichols you are ahead 58-0 before the kickoff and you pray for 4 quarters.


    Thanks. So, if I understand you (none / 0) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:33:27 PM EST
    correctly, those betting the spread are counting on Oregon scoring at least 59 points (or not if you bet on NS).

    So, with the over/under at 58 1/2, the thinking is that if it is a Ducks' win NS will somehow manage the impossible task of scoring only 1/2 point?


    Or the Ducks go and score more than 58 (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 04:51:28 PM EST
    and cover the over all by themselves.

    Three cheers for the first "upset." (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    The Bison of North Dakota State (FCS, aka D-I-AA) defeated defending Big 12 Champion Kansas State on the road last night, 24-21, before 53,351 stunned fans in Manhattan, the second-largest crowd in Wildcat football history -- which included Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and U.S. Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran.

    But was it an upset, really? Perhaps to those who don't look beyond the power conferences when watching college football, sure. But the Bison are, in fact, the defending two-time NCAA champions at the FCS level, and with last night's victory over the Wildcats, have now won seven of their last ten games against FBS-level opponents, and have also won their last 13 games on the road. Further, NDSU head coach Craig Bohl was the longtime defensive coordinator at Nebraska, and matched wits with Wildcat coach Bill Snyder on many occasions.

    The thing is, Kansas State didn't play a bad game last night. But what the Wildcats were scrapping with last night was a very good North Dakota State team that travels well and is looking for an NCAA-FCS three-peat, and the Bison were simply better when it counted in the 4th quarter.


    And a tip of the hat to the second. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:09:22 PM EST
    Final: Eastern Washington 49, No. 25 Oregon State 46.

    Eastern Washington QB Vernon Ward passed for 411 yards and four TDs, and then scored the winning TD on a two-yard run with 18 seconds remaining in the game as, the FCS Eagles shocked the Beavers in Corvallis.


    It's a trifecta. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 03:44:55 AM EST
    Eastern Illinois, another FCS power, pulled away from San Diego State in the second half with three straight TDs to win, 40-19.

    TEEEE-bowww!!! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    REEEEleased today by the New England Patriots. Let us genuflect on the man and the moment.

    Look at that little DUCK run... (none / 0) (#47)
    by fishcamp on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:49:20 PM EST
    Today was International Bacon Day; (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 09:13:48 PM EST
    Our celebratory BLTs starred a couple of Black Cherokee tomatoes.  Since every late August day is also Tomato Day, on the side we had garden peach tomatoes (yellow), persimmon (orange), and green zebra (green-yellow with dark green stripes).

    I just caught... (none / 0) (#58)
    by desertswine on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:06:01 PM EST
    Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine. A dark movie, but I was just stunned by an incredible performance by Kate Blanchett. All the acting was great but Blanchett was amazing.

    I saw the same movie this afternoon. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:06:50 AM EST
    I was fortunate to see Blanchett play Blanche at B..A.M.  Some similar themes. Great performances. She and Judy Dench made a wonderful movie: "Notes on a Scandal."  And, of course, "Pushing Tin" w/John Cusack and "Oscar and Lucinda" w/Ralph Fiennes.

    She was fantastic (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 08:25:30 AM EST
    Unfortunately the rest of the movie simply couldn't come close to her intensity of performance. The perfect example of an actress making a lot more of the script than seemed possible. Also, I was disappointed in the way Allen shot, or didn't shoot, the city. You hardly saw a lick of it. That's almost unforgivable. But, again, Blanchett was so good, you almost forgot how ho-hum everything else was. And come on, why was Louis CK even IN the movie? At least Dice Clay got to do a little bit, Louis CK coulda been a talking mannequin for all he added. THAT'S what you do with one of the best comics working? Blah.

    Saw it too (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    Exceeded my expectations even though I had heard great things. She was wonderful.

    I liked the movie as a whole more than I expected also. Going in I didn't  know it was going to be such a close relation to 'A Streetcar Named Desire'.

    I knew Blanchett could do comedy since the opening scene of 'Bandits', where she wails 'total eclipse of the heart' in the car. One of my favorite scenes in any movie ever. Give her an Oscar already!


    Cate in Bandits (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    showing how it's done. I've seen a lot of actresses copycat these scenes over the years, to little effect.

    How did I miss this! (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    A hearty congratulations to the Portland Thorns (none / 0) (#60)
    by caseyOR on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:16:38 AM EST
    who won the inaugural NWSL(National Women's Soccer League) championship today. The Thorns defeated the Western New York Flash 2-0.

    We are quite soccer-mad here in Portland. So, this win is a very big deal. I hope so very much that the NWSL makes a real go of it. This league is doing better in its first year than previous professional women's soccer leagues have done in the U.S. So, hopefully there is some momentum.

    Women's professional soccer does so much better in Europe than here. I'm not sure why.

    Still, it's a great day for the Thorns.

    BTD College Football Financial Update (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    BTD Sat 8-6 +4 units
    visteo  1-4 -3 units
    CG 1-0 +1 unit

    For the Season
    BTD 10-12 -3 units
    visteo 3-10 -7 units
    coralgables 2-1 +1 unit