Soxbadger

I dont think at this point they have a signature win. They let Texas slip away, they let Marquette slip away and they let Minnesota slip away. When I posted that, I thought UM would win at home and that would put a much clearer distinction between OSU/Wisconsin. As it is, both OSU and Wisconsin won at UM. Right now I would take Wisconsin over OSU. Could I be wrong? Sure For all I know OSU will end up second in the big 10 followed by Purdue etc. The top is really close with 5 teams having 2 losses in Big 10 play. Obviously its all going to play out, these are just my current rankings based on what Ive seen. Its not an exact science, and I knew I shouldnt have posted right before OSU/UM. But I thought UM would take care of business at home and that would put Wisconsin clearly above those 2. As it turned out, OSU won that game. But at that minute, its what I felt. I really dont think its that out of line.

Im not saying that for the Bears trading a 1st rounder would be the best decision. (I think they may be able to get one via FA) Im just saying that Boldin for a single first rounder is not a bad deal for a team who needs a solid WR. More of a commentary on Boldin's value, than his value to the Bears. Also for Orton, Boldin would be a very good receiver as he runs short quick routes and gets a ton of YAC. That was the Purdue offense.

I think youre over valuing a first rounder. Even if Boldin is second tier, most of the WR's you could get in the mid first round are going to max out as second tier talent. Then there are the boatload of first round picks who are completely crap and do nothing (Big Mike Williams, Charles Rogers, Troy Williamson and the list goes on). So if you are getting a known quantity in Boldin for only a first round pick, its generally not a bad deal unless he gets hurt or leaves via free agency after 1 year. Boldin also would be the best back up qb the Bears have, haha.

Follow up comments: Rock: I posted that before OSU beat Michigan, if I was to rerank I would put OSU above Michigan. The question of OSU versus Wisconsin is a toss up right now, but I think that if they played today that Wisconsin would win, thus I rank them slightly above OSU. Brian: Well Michigan has lost at home to both Wisconsin and OSU. They lost by 12 to Wisconsin and 7 to OSU. It is hard for me to rank Michigan over those 2 teams regardless of whether or not they beat Duke and UCLA. I posted that before OSU beat Michigan hence why I had them at 5. NCAA may take 5 Big 10 teams this year, Im just saying that right now the only "locks" are the top 4 in the Big 10. I believe the Big 10 will get 4 selections minimum, therefore unless you are one of those top 4 Im not considering the team in. Zen: Posted that before OSU beat Michigan. OSU over Michigan at this point and close with Wisconsin. Obviously as the season progresses things are going to change, who thought Minnesota would lose to NU after coming back from 14 down to beat Wisconsin for the first time in Minnesota history in the Kohl Center. Wisconsin has not closed out games they have had the lead in and they are suffering. If theycan fix it they will be a top 3 team in the Big 10, if they dont they will be below OSU.

lol I was going to post I doubt its the alternator because the car shouldnt have been able to hold a charge. (The only time Ive been in a car with a broken alternator even after getting jumped it would die quickly because the car couldnt recharge itself.) I just have no clue about cars so I didnt want to sound stupid.

Well here is how I would rank the Big 10 now: 1. MSU 2. Purdue/ Minnesota 4. Illinois --------------------- (Above 4 are in NCAA tournament as of now) 5. Wisconsin 6. Michigan 7. OSU --------------------- (Above 3 are bubble) 8. Penn State 9. Iowa 10. Indiana 11. Northwestern There is still a lot of season to be played but thats how I see it right now.

Wisconsin just basically blew their season last night. Not sure how they cant handle the press but the seniors this year are just not getting it done, and Hughes half the time seems to be playing for the other team. I hope that they can some how make the NCAA tournament so that Bo can keep his streak going, but right now they are just to inconsistent to really figure out.

Well I agree we have a fundamental disagreement. But it is not about why wars are started. Your argument was that if we let the Israel-Palestine conflict get severe enough that eventually they will lose their blood lust and stop fighting. You cited Europe over the last 60 years and pointed out how brutal the previous 500 years had been. I disagreed on this point. I said that when religious convictions are at the root of a conflict, that no amount of bloodshed can quench that thirst. That was not to argue that all wars are about religion or even most wars are about religion, it was to argue that this one specific conflict is unlike the other conflicts. You seem to like to use the word "all" in your arguments, and that is fine but you have to understand it is your opinion. It is not proven fact, there are many other scholars who would completely disagree with your propositions that: The first statement is just not historically true. Wars have been started for religion, wars have been started due to dictators. The times do not always make the man, some times the man makes the times. Even more specifically we have to look at the full context of the argument. The only major devastating war you have listed (30 years, Napoleonic, WWI and WWI) that did not involve either religion or a crazy dictator as a precursor to the war was WWI. While Germany was devastated from WWI, it still took Hitler over half a decade of propaganda and lies (plus being arrested) to get the people of Germany ready to fight again. Who knows what the fate of Germany would have been under a different ruler. The treaty of Versailles was rough, but the outbreak of war was not the only solution. Plus Germany and Japan were not fighting to balance the power (Japan was already the preeminent power of SE Asia) they wanted to consolidate the power. One interesting difference of the Palestine-Israel conflict is that unlike other wars, the weaker state is the aggressor. Generally war is started when one group feels that they are powerful enough to impose their will on a weaker group. Germany invades Czechoslovakia, Germany invades Poland, Japan invades China, Japan invades Vietnam. So when you look at war I think you have to look at it as the inverse of trying to keep global and regional balance (that is peace), war is trying to consolidate power and remove balance. When there is balance there is peace, countries do not generally fight unless one country is trying to take something from another. And the only way it makes sense for a country to try and take something from another country is if they are more powerful. Thus the reason why Israel-Palestine will continue to fight is not because the Arabs can not wipe out the Israeli's it is because the Israeli's are the more powerful side but do not act as aggressors. Palestinians and Arabs have gone to war with Israel 3 times since the Israel has been founded. Can you think of another time in history where weaker countries have invaded a stronger country 3 times in less than 50 years and the stronger country still let them exist? The situation is backwards in so many respects, which is why I do not think you can just break down the conflict based on European wars or based on modern states. I think that the conflict is unique for many different reasons, but I really just can not agree with the idea that religion isnt part of it at all. I believe that religion is one of the main reasons for the conflict, at least from the Jewish perspective. To be blunt, the rest of the world has not always been friendly to the Jews. Just because Christians tolerate them today, does not mean that Jews wont be Christ killers tomorrow. All through out history Jews have been persecuted, murdered and thrown out of every home that they have ever known (USA being major exception). I just do not believe you can understand the Jewish perspective unless you understand the history of the Jews. The land of Israel is of significant importance to Jews not just in Israel, but Jews in every country of the world. Every year at Passover it is said "Next year in the land of Israel". It is why wealthy Jews from around the world leave their money to Israel, why they travel to Israel, why they move to Israel. It is a mitzvah, it is something that I believe is unique. While I think some of your statements may generally hold true, that religion is generally not the real cause of war in the modern era, I believe that in this instance religion is a factor.

Unless the contract is for a ridiculous amount, I think it was a good idea.

Medical.

It just shows the impossibility of trying to fight "gateway" drugs. The focus should be on teaching children and adults the effects of drugs and why they may be harmful for certain segments of the population to take. In my personal opinion as a child I would have been much more willing to listen to real arguments about why taking drugs as a child may be harmful, instead of hearing hyperbolic statements about how take drugs 1 time will lead to the end of your life. But thats just my personal belief on how America can be more successful at keeping kids off drugs.

Thats not true. The substance is only legal for certain people at certain times. When you drink under age you are breaking the law, you can not say "Well alcohol is a legal substance" because for you it is not. Legal means allowed under law, when you are under 21 alcohol is not legal substance, it is illegal to consume, it is illegal to own and it is illegal to buy (except certain circumstances like Wisconsin with a parent present.) The only reason Im concerned about the image is because the image was falsely created by people like William Randolph Hearst who wanted to profit and benefit from marijuana being made illegal. It is the imagery that keeps marijuana illegal, not scientific fact. Im sure you have heard the results of The Laguardia Committee Report which was commissioned in 1944.

Alcohol consumption is illegal under the age of 21. Generally the first legal to illegal gate that children pass through is either cigarettes or alcohol. In my experience I have not met a marijuana user who did not attempt alcohol or cigarettes first. As to the black market for alcohol, look into moonshine and the like. The US govt just cracks down on it and stills are some what easier to find in the Appalachian Mountains than marijuana plants.

But the reason why Germans, French, English, etc could bury the hatchet was because there was no true reason for why the fighting even began in the first place. World War I was entirely dependent on a group alliances that were built in response to counter balance the different rising European powers. Most of the tensions were due to colonization and greed, not deeply rooted traditions that are the entire basis of their culture. The European wars were based on a desire of worldly gain, the Middle East war is based on spiritual gain. Its funny that you mention Machiavelli because I was going to bring him up later, I just wanted to mention that. And I disagree that no region is more stable than Europe. Europe is always finely balanced it just is not classically balanced. The instability of Europe now is derived from conflict in the East (Russia and satellites) which is in some ways much like the beginnings of World War I. Just because Germany, England and France are playing nice today, does not mean that if certain other countries were to break down or war it could not lead to the entire destabilization of the EU. As the EU expands it will eventually be brought into conflict. Nothing can expand forever and not eventually meet resistance. The question for Europe in the future will be what happens when the conflict between the EU and whatever party finally happens. As countries that are closer to Russian influence begin to enter the fold it will be interesting to see how Russia pushes back. Since the end of World War II economic warfare has been the preferred battle ground of countries (Russian natural gas shortages to Europe blaming Ukraine who is trying to get into NATO and who knows maybe eventually EU). Right now there is peace, I just think based on history war is inevitable. Which brings us back to Machiavelli, I believe he stated: There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. Im pretty aware of the treaty of Westphalia. The point of my statement was each of those wars were horrific events where millions of people may have died, but none of those wars prevented the other wars from happening. I do not believe that World War II will stop an eventual war from happening in Europe. We may never see another World War, but my guess is that before humans cease to exist there will be another great war. Its entirely rational. The Jewish people believe that in order to fulfill the word of god they need to build a temple in a certain place and only that place will suffice. Unless you are saying that religion is by definition irrational, and then I entirely agree with you. But unfortunately I doubt that I can convince either side to just drop religion. All I can say is I never made an argument about ancient hatred, I made an argument that certain people believe that a specific piece of land has significance that can not be qualified and that historically this piece of land has been disproportionately fought over. And congratulations on being an international relations student (I think thats what IR means.) I received degrees in Political Science and History, so perhaps thats why my slant is to focus on the historical, as I believe Machiavelli thought it was important to look to the past to learn about the future. But not everyone agrees that the past is all that important. Bmags, I cant really speak as to the Palestinian argument. I can only tell you what I have seen from the Jewish perspective. For those who believe there is no compromise that can be reached in terms of the temple, it must be built and it must be built on that site. Unfortunately I can not give you the perspective of a believer, because at the end of the day I do not truly believe in any religion.

bmags, Well in that case it is true that since World War II European countries have not declared all out war on each other. Not that conflicts have not arisen (especially in Bosnia etc), but as of today there has not been a major war in Europe in over 60 years. My claim is not that it is no way comparable, my claim is that it is much deeper rooted and therefore its much harder for either side to walk away. I also think that its historically significant that after World War II no Western European was the preeminent power. During the time periods where Europe has fought the most brutally with itself, it has generally also had a preeminent power. Whether it be the English Empire, Napolean, Holy Roman Empire, etc each was powerful to the point where it did not really have to answer to anyone because of the how distant the other non-Western European threats. I also agree that they realized they were economically better off working together instead of fighting. I think they saw the power of the USA and USSR and realized that if they didnt want to just be the battlefield in between that they had to work together to regain the power that they had lost due to constant war and decolonization. But here is where I disagree. This is not a fight over money or this life, this is a fight about god. This is a fight over the jewish narrative, the story of the chosen people, the story of the first people to believe in the one true god, who for their belief were given a piece of land where they were supposed to build a temple to god, the story of the first temple and its destruction, the story of the second temple and its destruction and finally the store of the third temple being rebuilt. I dont lay claims for anyone, I do not side with either on the argument, I just know what beats in their hearts. From your posts I am going to guess that you are not Jewish, I may be wrong, but I just have a feeling. This is my analogy: Your father is god, on your first birthday he gives you a house and says, as long as you live in my house you will be blessed and you will have heaven in your house. Unfortunately there are no police and you grow up not to be the biggest guy on the block. 25 years later your neighbor comes over ( Babylonians) and decides to burn your house down. You then have to walk around for a while until the Babylonians tell you that you can build your house again. You build your house and live there for another 25 years. Unfortunately while youve been living in your house another person bought all the land its on and has decided to make you pay taxes (Romans). You get upset about that so they come over destroy everything in your house and burn it down. Now for the next 50 years you live on the land where your house once was, but no one will let you rebuild your house (permits etc) so you just sit there and wait. Eventually the people who hand out permits decide that they are going to give a permit to your arch enemy and will let him build a house on your land. You protest, but there is nothing you can do. So they build the house where your house once was, and you can never have heaven on earth because you can not live in the house as god directed. No analogy can ever make sense unless it includes god, because the problem can not be solved with money or wealth, that can never bring the messiah.

Fact. There is a reason why World War I was called "The War" and that the treaty was signed on 11/11 and why the war was called "the war to end all wars". The problem with your proposition is that within 3 decades of the end of World War I (the most devastating war known to man at the time) came World War II another war that was devastating on an unprecedented parallel. The question is, why was World War I not destructive enough to stop war, where as World War II was? The answer is not that: Europe was fed up with war to the point where it will never fight another war (France fought Vietnam after WWII, USA has fought many countries, GB has fought Argentina over Falklands and so on and so forth) Because if that was the case then no one would have considered the possibility of the Cold War developing into World War III. Well that is your first problem in the middle east conflict, you dont care about before 1500. The first temple was created in the 10th century BCE, thats 2500 years before the first date that you care about. The first temple was destroyed in 587 by the Babylonians, thats 2000 years before you care about. The second temple was then created by 516 BCE with authorization of the Babylonians. The second temple was subsequently destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans, which is still 1500 years before you care about. During the siege of Jerusalem estimates range that in excess of 1 million people died. (Josephus, War of the Jews.) This is in the year 70 CE. Which brings us to this point: And that is the problem when you are dealing with ancient wars, there is no way to estimate the severity of the killing because there are very few records that tell exactly what happened. And this goes to the absurdity of the argument. If the 30 years war was such a severe war, then why did Europe continue to fight for the next 300 years? If the 100 years war was such a severe war, then why did Europe continue to fight for another 600 years? If the Napoleonic wars were so severe, why did Europe eventually get into World War I and World War II? The answer to these questions is it is not the severity of the war that impacts whether or not war will happen in the future. Thats a terrible simplification. The war itself is not irrational it is in fact very rational and it basically boils down to 1 specific plot of land: The Jews believe that in order to fulfill the will of god they need to rebuild the Temple, the land where the Temple must be built is currently under Muslim control and they therefore can not rebuild it. This is called the Temple Mount, it is the holiest site in Judaism. The third temple can only be built on this site. The Muslims believe that the site is where Muhammad ascended to heaven. In Islam it is called the "Noble Sanctuary" and is the location of the "Dome of the Rock" considered one of the oldest Islamic structures in the world. Many Jews can not and will not rest until the third temple is built, which means the destruction of the current Islamic Mosque and Dome of the Rock. The two sides are at an impossible impasse which neither side can ever truly back down to. This is not like the 30 years war, the 100 years war or any conflict that has existed in European history. This conflict is born at the root of the religions. What incentive is there to stop fighting eachother when losing is worse than death to some? Bmags, But the conflict was in many ways the same at that time period. The reason I pointed out the longevity is that this specific piece of land has been the center of warfare for in excess of 3000 years. There is no other piece of land that shares such a history of continual conflict. Regions in Europe have changed, the precursors for war have changed, but in Jerusalem they stay the same. It is the promise of god to Moses of a holy land, it is the fall of the first temple which drives the Jewish people, it is the fulfillment of gods prophecy and the rebuilding of the temple which is the end goal. Well I disagree completely. I mean this is just my personal opinion, but I believe that religion is the number 1 priority of the Jewish state. The importance of Israel to the Jews is it is the land promised to them by god. If it was not for that, Jews would not care. It is a unique situation that can not be compared. No European country believes that its right to exist is predicated in the bible or in religion. It is unique to the Jewish experience, that they as a people believe that they are entitled to a certain piece of land because of the word of god. You say the main dispute is: But that is only the dispute from the Islamic side. The dispute from the Jewish side is that, the Jews created the first temple to god which was subsequently destroyed, they created the second temple to only have it destroyed and they can never rest until the third and final temple is built. It can only be built in one location, and that location is currently being used as a Muslim Mosque. A Jew who believes in the temple and all of that can never truly be at peace until the temple is rebuilt as the Messiah can only return if the Temple is built. And thus enter the Christians, some of which believe dispensationalist theology (fundamentalist and evangelicals) who believe that in order for the anti-christ, rapture and the rest to appear the Jewish people need to build the third and final temple. So that is the main dispute from the Jewish perspective, it is not about Israel or the homes as my belief is that if the Muslims would allow the creation of the Third Temple that the Jews would be willing to give them tons of other land. http://www.saveisrael.com/segal/segalhistory.htm Youll notice that step 5 is "rebuild the temple." And here is an article from 1967: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,837052,00.html For Jews the only way the messiah can come is for the temple to be rebuilt, should it not be rebuilt, God shall never return and no one will ever be able to enjoy heaven on earth. All of this is far more important than Gaza, Golan Heights, or any other piece of land taken by the Israeli's after World War II. The end goal is the creation of the temple, not the creation of Israel. (Edit) So is the reason you dont care about prior to 1500 because thats where the AP Euro book starts? (or at least thats where I remember it starting when I was a Sophomore in HS)

The problem with the assertion that they will eventually get tired out, is that they have been fighting for longer than most European countries have been in existence. At the time of the crusades Germany was not even a twinkle in its fathers eye. At the time of Babylon, Jericho, etc Europe was barely recognizable. If time was merely the answer then wouldnt they have stopped fighting at some point, maybe when the Romans burnt down the second temple, maybe when Saladim took Jerusalem, maybe when World War II ended? The problem is its not about existence, its about religion and the idea that you need to have certain religious places under your control in order to please god. Even more specifically the problem is that 1 single place is claimed by 3 major religions, all of them some what believing that they have the true claim and right to the land. There is no valid comparison to Europe.

Also different seeing the movie the first week it was released in a packed movie theater.

Bulls are dead to me. Each year I give them a chance, each year they perish.

I feel that Israeli Jews are beginning to forget what it is to be a jew and beginning to care more about what it is to be an Israeli. At passover one of the more important lessons is about slavery and that once the Jews were slaves in the land of Egypt. http://www.oyhoo.com/cyberseder/27.html One has to ask if the actions of Israeli Jews follows the word of the religion. Thats my biggest problem with all of this, is that we are supposed to rise above it, not sink down into it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3784036 That article seems to suggest Ron English (ex Michigan DC?) was the DC at Louisville. But maybe the guy was DC from December 22 to January 8?

OSU had their chances but just couldnt do it. They make the field goal, the defensive end catches the ball that hits him in the chest, things maybe go differently. Big 10 coaching has been brutal, maybe thats the reason why they cant win bowl games.

So far McCoy has been better beating the blitz than a 4 man rush. We will see what defense OSU tries.

How can Mack Brown even argue that call? The guy was holding his jersey. And Pryor with a td catch. I think that guy has the talent to play in any league.

There you go Rock a nice make up call for the personal foul and the pass interference. Interestingly, Texas wasnt called for pass interference on any of the close plays.