I read that Michigan State payed $250k to get out of its agreement to play Hawaii. Also, Hawaii's efforts to play Michigan at Michigan for Michigan's opening game were rebuffed. Apparently, Michigan wanted a bit easier opponent and scheduled App. State, which makes Michigan's loss even more fitting. Also, apparently USC rejected Hawaii's bid for a game. Cowards.

I forgot that SC played them in 05 and 06, so SC would probably want some variety. So, point taken. But I would imagine that playing sucky unranked Hawaii is much more palatable to USC than playing ranked Hawaii. Otherwise, the Trojans wouldn't have scheduled the Vandals. I mean, you just don't get much worse than Idaho. Hawaii probably thought that if USC agreed to play a home and home, they would agree to play one game at USC. USC, however, chose the "variety" of playing WAC basement-dweller Idaho.

I may be wrong about the facts, but this is my understanding of some of the relevant facts:

1) Radiohead was not under contract with a record company.

2) Radiohead is an established act with a more or less solid fanbase.

3) The members of Radiohead have made enough money already that they could live comfortably -- maybe not Paris Hilton comfortable, but above average comfortable -- without ever selling another cd or going on tour ever again.

Given all that, why not see how the market would determine the value of your product? Even if the band grossed less money, but didn't have share the profit with a record company, maybe they still come out okay. Yes, of course many people are cheap -- but if more people see Radiohead in concert as a result, then the band will still make money. Moreover, if some of those people decide to buy tshirts, tote bags, stickers, posters etc at the concert, then Radiohead will make lots of money. In short, unless you're driving an Italian sportscar from your flat in London to your country estate, maybe you should cut back on the gloating.

First: Uncomplaining cats? Me and my gf's cats complain all the time. Even the one that doesn't vocalize his displeasure let's you know when he's hungry or wants attention.

Second: Can't we find guys with sex dolls pathetic and creepy at the same time? I mean, it's sad and all that some guys are so shy and whatnot, but ... still. Moreover, it's not just women who are creeped out by such behavior. I'm creeped out too. Are you not?

C'mon! What's wrong with you people? We might actually get not just one, but two conventions where the nominee is decided on a second ballot! I read that the last time there was a second ballot was in 1952 -- my dad was three months old! For once, a reason to watch a convention! You can't deny all these exclamation marks!!!

I'm sure that the Republicans won't bring up Obama's drug use in the general election. Oh, but if one did, I'm sure a genuine, heartfelt apology would immediately be issued by every member of the GOP.

So many times I've heard Democrats talk about how their candidates need to be tougher, go for the throat, etc., just like the Republicans, so they can win. Then some dude at a HRC rally makes an oblique reference to Obama's use of cocaine and everybody gets their panties in a bunch and people demand some kind of goddamned intervention on HRC with apologies and mea culpas and teeth-gnashing. Dollars to donuts, a lot of those who are so irritated at HRC and the coke reference have also joked about Bush's drug and alcohol.

Tim, let this crap rest, for Christ's sake.

Oh, I "get" your point. I just think you're wrong. Serial lying? Really? Because she wanted some bullshit contri-versy to just go away? Wtf is HRC -- or any candidate -- supposed to do every single goddamn time one of their hundreds of staffers, supporters etc. makes a stupid joke or sends out a wrong-headed press release? Yes, let's stop the entire electoral process so we can all issue apologies to each other. This is so much more important than whether makeing health insurance mandatory is a necessary and/or useful concept for health insurance reform.

If you really really think that Johnson's oblique reference to Obama's use of cocaine is "controversy" meriting serious attention, then I don't know what to tell you.

Why should she even have had to come up with a response to this incident? Oh course she's going to say a bunch of nonsense to some bullshit question. She's being disinginuous because she probably wants to say "are you fucking kidding me with this shit?" We focus on these trivialities and wonder why we get stuck with Bush for eight years. Swift boats and inventing the internet don't work because the Republicans are so evil and devious: they work because we are too uninterested in policy to bother with anything else.