John Bolton Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

What the fuck? Yeah, because when I think of Peace, the first name that comes to mind is John Bolton.

If he's such a peaceful sort, he may want to go have a word with his idiot boss.

Minister arrested mid-sermon

So I ran across this article about a power struggle at a little church somewhere, and I didn't find it very interesting until I got to this part at the end:

...McCants, whose sermon was touching on the television series, "The Little House on the Prairie."

Little House on the Prairie? Ok, now I know the guy deserved to be fired. A 30 year old show about a family from over a hundred years ago. Maybe they fired him because they want to replace him with Reverend Alden, who I just saw the other day in The Green Mile. I guess he's still alive, and he'd probably have a better grasp of Little House on the Prairie related sermons than McCants does.

Bill Nelson Sucks

So, when it came out that Kerry may try to filibuster Alito's nomination, I emailed my Senator (Bill Nelson, I don't even waste time trying with Martinez) to urge him to support the filibuster and outlined my reasons why I thought it was odd to vote against him but not vote to support the filibuster. So today, I see this response in my email:

Please do not reply to this e-mail. If you need to send another message to Senator Nelson, please use the form on his Web site: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm#email



Dear Mr. Howard:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

After thoroughly reviewing his record and meeting him, I remained concerned that he would tilt the scales of justice in favor of big government over the average person. Justice Alito is also filling an important seat on the bench. For over 20 years, Sandra Day O’Connor was a voice of moderation for the Court. I believe that Justice Alito is not the centrist jurist for this critical seat. Therefore I voted against his nomination.

I appreciate hearing your concerns. Your communications helps me serve you better in the Senate.



P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you'd like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/newpages/newsletter.cfm

Fuck you, Bill Nelson. If you're going to send out automated responses, the least you could do is state that it is automated, and send it out immeadiately. this came over a week afte I sent in my email. And if it isn't automated, then it's even more disturbing, since it does not in any way address what I was talking about. I can't believe I voted for this guy (and also for Governor). I won't make that mistake again. Why would I email the guy to find out what his views are? I can read that in the paper or on the internet, or any number of places. I wanted to make sure he knew what my views on the subject were, since that's what he's supposed to be doing...representing me. Asshole.

Firestorm Over Cartoon Gains Momentum - New York Times

A fucking cartoon. Are you kidding me? What the fuck is wrong with people? I'm really starting to think that most people are just fucking insane. If you don't like the cartoon, then don't read it. Is it really that fucking complicated?

And if you're upset over a cartoon depicting your prophet with a bomb, I'm not sure responding with violence makes the most sense. That might just perpetuate the sterotype you are offended by.

Microsoft releases revamped Internet Explorer

I don't understand the browser wars. Usually, I'm pretty good with this technical stuff, but this one doesn't make sense to me. So Internet Explorer beat Netscape in the original browser wars, and now wants to keep Firefox from challenging their dominance. But why? What does a company gain from having the most used browser? I guess I can see some benefit for Firefox, just to establish themselves or something. But what does Microsoft have to gain from their browser? They're all free, so they're not making any money from selling the actual product. There are plenty of ads on the internets, but none of them are related to my browser, so they're not making any ad revenue. So what exactly is there to gain from having the most used browser? Is it just some higher goal of "control of the internets" or something? I don't get it. If everyone started using Firefox, would that cause Microsoft to lose money somehow? I would think it would help, because they wouldn't have to keep pouring money into Internet Explorer. I'm sure there's a good reason for wanting to be the top browser, but somehow, it just escapes me.

AT&T Allegedly Provided Customer Data To Feds

EFF points to AT&T's databases, which it says handled more than 300 million voice calls and over 4,000 terabytes (million megabytes) of data, which is about 200 times the data contained in the entire Library of Congress. It cites media reports, including a Dec. 22 Los Angeles Times story indicating that the NSA has had and continues to have direct access to the database, a proprietary tool that AT&T researchers developed and named Daytona.

emphasis mine

I'm sure that entire 4,000 terabytes is all terrorist related data, so there's nothing to worry about. I wonder how it is that you discover in all that data who is talking to a terrorist without compromising the privacy of the rest of it. Oh well, I'm sure the government is smarter than I am, so I'll just happily go along with it. They'll need to watch out for those conservatives, though. I heard once (well, it was a long time ago) that those guys don't like the government butting into their private lives.

Contrast

One team has a running back that won the NFL MVP award, led the league in rushing, and set the single season record for touchdowns. The other team has a running back that rushed for 368 yards (but with 9 TDs). So who is all the coverage about? Jerome Bettis, of course. Because playing possibly your last game in your hometown is a far more impressive accomplishment than all those other things that Shaun Alexander did. Not that this isn't an interesting side note that deserves to be mentioned, but Jesus Christ, it's enough already. It makes me sad for the day when a Superbowl host city's team actually makes it to the game in their home stadium. Because coincidence is much more interesting than accomplishment.

Lifetime Movies

I guess there's some sort of rule that you had to be on some 80s era sitcom before you can star in movies on Lifetime. Markie Post, Meredith Baxter, Jo from Facts of Life, and this morning I heard a radio commercial for one starring Raven Symone from The Cosby Show. Just let me remember the cute little girl, don't make me see the bad actor you've grown up to be.

Anyway, that's not what made me post about this commercial. It was because the movie advertised was something about segregated proms, which according to the commercial are still done in some places. Please tell me that Lifetime is just trying to hype up thier bad movie. This doesn't actually happen anywhere, does it? I know we have a lot of work left to do regarding race relations in America, but I thought for sure we had moved past segregated anything.

Ok, as I was typing my post, I realized I could answer my own question with the power of the internet, and found more info about the movie, and the story it was based on. But anyway, now please tell me that this is an isolated incident in some hick town in Georgia. Please.

The Book of Daniel

So, I'm watching 24 and my son is puttng together a puzzle, when he comes up to me and says, "Daddy, I wana watch the Book of Daniel." I tell him we can't because it won't be on anymore. He looks really sad and says, "but why, Daddy?" I have to restrain myself from telling him it's because some fundamentalist pricks who are too stupid to figure out how thier remote controls, vchips, cable boxes, power switches, turning their heads, closing their eyes, or any other of the million different things they could do to avoid watching this show, like to decide what the rest of us can and can't watch on TV, and instead just manage to tell him it got canceled.

I didn't think it was a great show or anything, I just watched in the first place because the religous extremists thought it was bad, but I was still disappointed when it got canceled before even getting a chance to see how good it would be, just because a bunch of assholes think they should be able to control what I watch. Dickheads. Won't anyone please think of the children?

Texas Instruments TI-99/4A computer

A coworker sent this to me, which brought back all kinds of great memories. We had one of these when I was a kid, and got a lot of use out of it. We had a bunch of video games for it, like Parsec, Munchman(PACMAN rip off), and some really bad football game. We also had the speech synthesiser which was very cool and futuristic. And we played text adventures with it, but since there was no disk drive on ours anyway), they were stored on cassette tape. Give it seeming eternity to load (modem-like sounds emitting from it the whole time), and you were whisked to some great adventure with no graphics whatsoever. All my friends had atari 2600's, and I always felt like we had the knock-off version, but looking back, the TI games were a lot better than that Atari 2600 crap. Actually, those were some pretty great games, considering the limited resources available. Hell, even with the limits, they were better than a lot of crap that you see today. Great graphics certainly doesn't equal great games.

Speaking of old games, I went to visit my parents this weekend, and my Dad had hooked up our old Atari 5200. The buttons on that thing really sucked ass, so we could only play the games that would work with the trackball, or Space Dungeon, which used two joysticks and no buttons (and we had to use a paperclip to short out the start button to start it). I quickly got re-addicted to Space Dungeon, which is a great game. My brother and I used to play it for hours.

Anyone else have a TI-99/4A, or Atari 5200? If not, what video game system/PC was the first one you remember using? And if you say Nintendo, Sega or Playstation, you're too young to participate in this discussion, so go to your room, because I don't want people making me feel old, damnit.

Sen. Obama criticizes filibuster tactic

Jesus, I never realized Senator Obama was a fucking moron. Do people lose all common sense once they get elected to public office or something?

Obama cast Alito as a judge "who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values."
But Obama joined some Democrats, including Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York, in expressing his unhappiness with the filibuster bid

So he recognizes that Alito is a bad choice, but doesn't have any interest in opposing him using the only avenue open for that opposition. Great. Instead of showing up for the vote, why doesn't he just stay home and let Frist cast his vote for him? So, because he thinks it's the wrong way to get it done, he is just going to do nothing instead? Look, I'm unhappy with the filibuster, too, but it's the only way left for resonable people to have any voice in this process at this point. It would be nice to me if Republicans weren't so blindly loyal to their party that they could recognize that all Alito will do is increase the power of governement over individuals (something they're supposed to be against), and would vote against him. But since they're not going to, I'm all for filibustering him. Really, whatever it takes, withtin the rules, and the law, to keep him off the court is what they should be doing.

Who gives a fuck?

Jesus Christ, I can't believe that this is such a big fucking issue. The author was srong to present his book as fact if it was made up or even partially made up, but who really cares whether some guy lied in his memoir? Don't like it? Don't fucking buy it, that's how simple it is. Sure the guy should be forced to tell the truth, but he shouldn't be treated like he's some sort of fucking criminal. I'll tell you what, if I could write a book, pass it off as fact and sell as many as he has, I'd do it in a second. And I wouldn't feel all that guilty about it. If you found the story inspirational and it helped you in some way, or you just found it entertaining, then none of that should change just because it's not true. Shut the fuck up about it, already. It's hardly something we should devote this much attention to.

And as great as I think it is that Oprah gets more people to read, I also am a little sad everytime I see that a lot of people only seem to read or care about what Oprah tells them to read. There are a whole lot of books out there, and I bet even Oprah hasn't read them all. Find some for yourself, you might find that you like your taste even better than Oprah's.

Political Cortex: Confirmed this info. Kerry's office says he is initiating a filibuster

Good. Now, I have no doubt that Samuel Alito will be on the Supreme Court, whether there is a filibuster or not. The Republicans will somehow scare up enough support for their nuclear option, if they have to because they do whatever the fuck they want. But that doesn't mean reasonable people need to just stand aside and let them. We need to make them jump through whatever hoops are possible to get this nutjob on the court. Who knows, maybe some reasonable Republicans will balk at the idea of using the nuclear option and the filibuster will work. That would be great for everyone, even the Republicans who are too stupid to understand it, since alito doesn't care about their rights as Americans anymore than he cares about mine.

And nice to see that John Kerry has gotten tired of being a seen as a spineless pussy, who says a lot of things, but doesn't bother to follow them up with any action. A filibuster is the only choice here. Alito is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court. If you recognize that enough to vote against him, then you need to recognize it enough to support a filibuster.

And when the fucknuts all start chiming in with their "fair up or down vote" crap, be sure to suggest that they are correct and move that we start confirmation proceedings for Harriet Miers, who deserves her up or down vote just as much as Alito does (which is to say, she doesn't).

White House Declines to Provide Storm Papers - New York Times

Let's see. So the confidentiality of every American's communications can be compromised presumably to prevent more people from dying in future terrorist attackes, but the confidentiality of the executive branch cannot be compromised to prevent people from dying due to failures in federal responses to future hurricanes? So who is supposed to be in charge in this country, again? Because I keep forgetting.

Look, I realize that there are things that the executive branch must keep from public view, but I hardly see how anything relating to Katrina could compromise national security or anything. Obviously, this is all about power. Although I can't see any legitimate reason to like this guy, I realize that other people somehow do, but I just don't get how liking a guy makes it ok to give him whatever power he wants.

I wonder if the average American is more likely to die in a hurricane or a terrorist attack.

White House steps up defense of domestic eavesdropping

Bush also said he kept key members of Congress informed.

"You know, it's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he was just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Bush said, apparently referring to former Vice President Al Gore's accusation last week that he was "breaking the law" by authorizing the program.

"These are not phone calls within the United States," Bush said. "This is a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States.

"I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the United States Congress ... about this program."

Well, I don't know about you, but I feel much better knowing that he had all kinds of lawyers and congressmen looking over the program. Of course, the lawyers work for the executive branch or the NSA, and I wonder just exactly which congressmen he briefed on this? If he was so sure of his legal footing, why didn't he get approval from the actual people the law requires?

Yesterday was a bad day to be a Quarterback named Jake

As I noticed this yesterday, with both of these guys not just losing, but playing horribly, I also figured out why Peyton Manning is having such a rough time winning a Superbowl, and why my son will face an uphill battle to ever be a Superbowl Champion quarterback. I noticed that all four quarterbacks left had short one-syllable names: Jake, Jake, Matt and Ben. Then I started thinking about all the Superbowl winning quarterbacks and realized the vast majority of them share this trait.

Bart, Joe, Len, Johnny, Roger, Bob, Terry, Ken, Jim, Joe, Joe, Jim, Phil, Doug, Jeff, Mark, Troy, Steve, Brett, John, Kurt, Trent, Tom, Brad, Matt/Ben.

So, out of 40 games, only 7 of them have been won by guys with more than one syllable in their first name, and those 7 represent only 3 out of 25 guys, and none for the last 25 years. So, obviously, if Manning wants to win one, he needs to change his name. His brother is also screwed. We were thinking about calling my son Jake before he was born, but at some point decided not to. I didn't realize we were destroying his chances of ever quarterbacking a Superbowl winning team. Of course, with the two Jakes doing so lousy yesterday, it might not have helped. You'll notice that this research does nothing to excuse Dan Marino from never winning it all. Also, as I thought about this, I thought maybe that's it's just that one syllable names are more common, so as a control group, I also considered the starting running backs for these championship teams:

Elijah, Donny, Matt, Robert, Tom, Walt, Larry, Franco, Clarence, Tony, Franco, Mark, Ricky, John, Marcus, Roger, Walter, Joe, Timmy, Ottis, Earnest, Emmitt, Ricky, Edgar, Terrell, Marshall, Jamal, Antowain, Michael, Corey, Shaun/Willie

Broadcasters Piss Me Off

I'm always irritated whenever an announcer says "the ground cannot cause a fumble," and they say that all the time. But it's just not true. If a player is running with the ball in the open field and trips over his own feet, or runs into a teammate and the ball hits the ground and pops free, that's a fumble. Obviously, this doesn't happen often, so normally when a guy hits the ground and the ball comes out, he's been hit by an opposing player sometime on the way down. In this case, he would be down and it wouldn't be a fumble. Not because the ground can't cause a fumble, but because the player is down before the ball comes out. Also, announcers often say this when talking about a reception versus an incomplete pass, which is a completely different situation.

So anyway, when for the first time I hear a commentator correctly say that the ground can cause a fumble, it's a little irritating that he does it when the runner is so clearly down that there isn't even any question about it. But that's what Phil Simms did yesterday. Willie Parker's forearm hit the ground, as he was being tackled, and the ball came out. You would think that playing in the NFL for a while, and winning a Superbowl would actually indicate some basic grasp of NFL rules, but Phil Simms apparently managed to get by without it. He actually tried to argue during the review that he wasn't sure if the players forearm being down was enough to overturn the call on the field of a fumble. Huh? Idiot. And he actually said, "but his knee isn't down." Even worse, Jim Nance didn't correct him. And when the official very clearly said that the forearm was down, and there was no fumble, he didn't even correct himself, he still said he didn't know if just the forearm would be enough to overturn the call.

Fake tolerance

I was reading the 'Rants & Raves' column in my local paper today. Like it sounds, it's an open forum for readers to send in short statements about stuff that gets them going. I found the following comment interesting and infuriating.

This is regarding Wednesday night's American Idol episode, where the last contestant was a cross-dresser... While I respect everyone's right to choose their lifestyle, I deeply resent that my 10-year-old son had to witness that particular ratings stunt. As a parent, I want to choose the time to tell my son about alternative lifestyles. Unfortunately, I had no choice but to answer questions that he should not have to ask at this age...This is supposed to be a family show - one this family won't watch again.

Now, I didn't see the show, so I don't know what the cross-dresser in question looked or acted like. I don't know if this was just a guy in drag like a Ru Paul type or an actual transvestite, though I would guess the former. I think it's safe to assume that the author believes that the contestant was gay (I would be surprised if he knew about the various distinctions in sexual identity). A couple of things about this rant piss me off.

First the author says he respects everyone's right to choose their lifestyle. The choice of words tips you off right away. Using the words choice and lifestyle in this context is always negative. He means that it's ok with him as long as these freaks never crawl out of their holes and bother normal people like him and his normal family.

Second, let's pretend that he was telling the truth and that he really does respect people's choices. But he's upset that he has to expose his 10-year-old son to this 'lifestyle'. His implication is that there's something dirty and shameful about people who aren't mainstream heterosexuals. As if the very act of being who they are is somehow sexual, like public lewdness or something. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would consider anything other than good old-fashioned straight people to be too risque for family entertainment. Especially if one guy wearing a dress gets him so bent out of shape that he feels the need to write his local paper.

Last, what is he trying to protect his 10-year-old from? I have 2 kids, 10 and 6. In my experience, you don't do anyone any favors, especially the kids when you try to keep the world out. Keeping them from knowing that gay people exist is not protecting their innocence. Kids don't have some sort of right to be free from knowledge. He makes it sound like they showed a live blow-job and he had to explain oral sex to his son. It was just a guy in a dress - thank goodness it wasn't a bare nipple, or the shit might have really hit the fan.

I hate this sort of fake tolerance. He says he respects people, but then goes on to prove that he doesn't. Respect and tolerance both require acceptance and compassion. I think it's important to call people on this kind of bullshit. We've come a long way as a society in the last 50 or so years, but there's still a long way to go until we achieve true respect and compassion for people of every stripe.

My neighbors

Well, not my next-door neighbors, but a house a couple of miles down the road from our neighborhood. I was driving by today and something caught my eye - it was the word 'ass'. Before I passed the house completely, I was able to see the whole thing. It was a phrase in large white letters on top of a windshield of a truck which was facing the road. The whole text was 'Kick raghead ass again!'

I do live in a very red part of a red state in the deep south, but this took me a little by surprise. I think most of the bigots around here (and there are many) have learned to keep their bigotry low key. I mean, I can't imagine the same guy with a slogan saying 'Kick more nigger ass!' or something like that. I guess it shows that openly anti-Muslim, anti-Arab sentiment is ok, at least around these parts.

It does make me wonder what it would be like to live in a place where progressives outnumber neanderthals. But I have too many other things tying me to this area, so it's just an idle thought.

Iraqi Invasion: A Text Misadventure

If you've ever played Zork or games like that, I think you'll find this very funny. An excerpt -


Oval Office
You are standing inside a White House, having just been elected to the presidency of the United States. You knew Scalia would pull through for you.

There is a large desk here, along with a few chairs and couches. The presidential seal is in the middle of the room and there is a full-length mirror upon the wall.

What do you want to do now?

> INVADE IRAQ
You are not able to do that, yet.

> LOOK MIRROR
Self-reflection is not your strong suit.

> PET SEAL
It's not that kind of seal.

> EXAMINE CHAIRS
They are two several chairs arranged around the center of the room, along with two couches. Under one couch you find Clinton's shoes.

> FILL SHOES
You are unable to fill Clinton's shoes.

Time-zone fight ends in Indiana

This article sucks. After seeing the headline I was curious to see how, in 2006, people could not even manage to agree what time it is. But after reading the article, I still have no idea why anyone would oppose daylight savings time. Also, after reading the article I have new questions. The article seems to focus on a battle centered on adoption of daylight savings time, which is apparently resolved somehow by moving counties into a different time zone. Why does what time zone you're in have any bearing on whether you use daylight savings time or not? I assume there are some difficulties living near a time-zone border, and apparently daylight savings time further exacerbates those in some way, but it would be nice if the article bothered to explain them.

Feds after Google data

The Bush administration is a bunch of crooks. Why on earth do they need to see people's search history? If they want to see how often porn is returned in searches then sit the fuck down and do some searches and actually work to find it out, it's not Google's job to do your work for you. However, I'm sure this really doesn't have anything to do with porn. Good for Google for their position on it. Of course, if I were running Google, the official position would be "Fuck Off!" but fighting it vigorously should do ok too.

And a note to parents: There is porn on the internet. There is nothing that the governement or anyone else can do to get rid of it. Also, there is porn that is not on the internet. I grew up with no internet and still managed to see plenty of porn before becoming an adult. Your kids will see porn before you want them to, and you can't stop it. Just get used to it, it probably won't hurt them. The best way to protect your children from porn is for you to do it, not for the government or the tv stations or anyone else to do it for you. Also, by the time they're really looking for it, the only way it's going to damage them is if you've sheltered them so much, and given them some warped sense of reality that they feel guilty about it or think there is something wrong with them for wanting to see it. The reason there is so much porn available is because people like it. Your kids will see it someday, instead of trying to postpone that day until they're adults, try to raise them as responsible open-minded people with good values and judgement, then when they do see it, it probably won't matter that much anyway.

Either way, George Bush needs to seriously stay the fuck out of people's private lives. And if he doesn't, it would be nice if all his "small government" type supporters came out against him for it. I mean seriously, what the fuck's it going to take? Surely we're not afraid the terrorists are looking at too much porn. Actually, if they see enough porn, maybe they'll rethink that whole radical religous nutjob thing and just develop some unhealthy internet addiction instead, which would really be better for everyone.

Follow Up

Following up nicely with my MTV theory post, my daughter has been working on a project in her American Government classwhere they have to come up with their own political party and platform. Today she came home with her speech. I was happy to hear that her party was called the Equal Rights Party, with the central part of their platform being gay rights. There were some other ideas in her speech that I didn't really agree with, but I was happy tosee that a few high schoolgirls could get together and decide that gay rights is an important enough issue to base their party on. She has to give her speech tomorrow, so I'll be interested to see how it goes over with her class.

Oregon assisted suicide law upheld

In my post below about the probable confirmation of Alito, we were debating whether a justice's ideology should be considered when deciding to confirm or not. I think this ruling points out just why ideology is the most important consideration, if a candidate is otherwise qualified.

This case hinged on the interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act and whether the act's provision that controlled substances be used for "legitimate medical purposes" allowed the Attorney General to criminalize the prescribing of drugs for assisted suicide. You can read through the text of the statue here and the opinion here.

If you read the majority and dissenting opinions, you see that both Kennedy, writing for the majority, and Scalia in dissent, take the same wording and the same precedents on how to interpret these rules and regulations and come to completely opposite conclusions. After reading both opinions, it's clear to me that the major difference here is ideology, not legal principle.

Kennedy writes that the Attorney General's use of the "legitimate medical purposes" language to block prescriptions of drugs that the state of Oregon has authorized clearly falls outside his statutory powers. Reading the statue, it's clear that the intent of Congress was to prohibit the illegal trafficking of controlled substances, and only to regulate a doctor's prescription writing when the prescriptions are being used to promote illegal trafficking of controlled substances. Kennedy cites earlier court opinions which describe how federal rules and regulations have to be interpreted, and comes to the conclusion that the Attorney general's interpretation is not protected by precedent.

Scalia writes that the use of the language "legitimate medical purposes" is sufficient for the Attorney General to issue the rule, and that his interpretation is protected by the court's earlier decisions and requires deference. He goes on to deconstruct Kennedy's reasoning and also to show that assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose.

Reading both opinions, and wading through all the legal minutiae, it's easy to see how in murky cases like this it's easy and probably unavoidable that a justice would use his or her own opinion of whether something is right or wrong and then find the legal basis to support that opinion, even if it's not done consciously. You can see this also in a separate dissent by Thomas that uses different decisions to support the Attorney General's position. It think it's very naive to think that all 9 of these people were dispassionately weighing the law with none of their own personal morality affecting their judgment. That's why you have to consider a justice's ideology when deciding whether to confirm or not.

Man recovering after heart attack during Steelers game

I'm seriously surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. A lot of people (including me) get very caught up in their sports teams, and when there is a play that sudden and changes the game so much, I would think it would be a lot for some Steeler fans to handle. Hell, I was pretty excited myself, and I don't like either team. Hopefully, the AFC Championship will be less of a nail-biter, whether the Steelers win or lose. Otherwise it may be the end of Terry O'Neill.