There was really a change in philosophy then. And Glen, for all the criticism he's received -- for all that criticism that all of us have received, and deservedly so -- we were fortunate that ownership stuck with us to give us the time to do it right.

unfortunate that Karen Hughes' response to this criticism, calling it 'a gross distortion' shows that she still doesn't get it. The only gross distortion here is mentioning law-abiding, patriotic, pro-choice Americans in the same sentence as terrorists.

When a lion goes for a kill, he doesn’t pay attention to squeaks of rats and shrieks of monkeys and so are the wise men, who undertake a new task.

The necessity of reform mustn’t be allowed to become a form of blackmail serving to limit, reduce, or halt the exercise of criticism. Under no circumstances should one pay attention to those who tell one: “Don’t criticize, since you’re not capable of carrying out a reform.” That’s ministerial cabinet talk. Critique doesn’t have to be the premise of a deduction that concludes, “this, then, is what needs to be done.” It should be an instrument for those for who fight, those who resist and refuse what is. Its use should be in processes of conflict and confrontation, essays in refusal. It doesn’t have to lay down the law for the law. It isn’t a stage in a programming. It is a challenge directed to what is.

It's unfortunate the reason that awareness is raised but it always makes you go back and look at your plan again.

It will give Jamie a new start. Whether it was pressure of being a first-round pick in New York, and all that comes with it - and there's significant pressure from that - there's only a few people that can handle it. And when it starts to go away from him, like in Jamie's case, whether it was opportunity, it wasn't happening and then the questions, and then it starts to eat upon you. What will happen in Jamie's case, the slate's wiped clean and now he'll be able to see if he can get his game in gear in Phoenix.