G&T

There is a key difference though. The Red Sox hitters have been there and done that. You can't count on them simply falling apart like the Sox did that year. Hopefully they do, but I don't see that many pop ups being hit.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2005 -> 04:48 PM) Here's one from like back in June...not directed at the person posting this, but instead directed at the good ATH folks: WE DON'T CARE I really hope someone has a sign that says that at the game...and maybe something that says "East Coast Sports Propaganda Network."

Run the bases well, and win at home.

Day games: White Sox: 36-20 Red Sox: 29-19 That's a good thing, and so is this: Road Record: Red Sox: 41-40 Gotta get two at home so Boston won't be so harsh.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 30, 2005 -> 08:45 AM) Speaking of STL have you noticed how ESPN all but ignored their free-fall in Sept? The CWS can still finish with the best record in MLB in 2005. Well there wasn't anyone even close to beating them. Also, they are ignored more than the White Sox. People pick them to win more but coverage is actually worse in my opinion.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 27, 2005 -> 08:54 PM) actually, Crede probably needs to stay. Hopefully next year Pods can play a full season. As far as Rowand and Everett, I wouldn't mind seeing an improvement at center and DH. Crede can stay but I have a suspicion we will all want Pods gone next year at some point. This guy can't drive in runs. Not only is he not stealing bases, but even when he has the chance to help the team by getting a hit he becomes an automatic out. Rowand is a fine 6 or 7 hitter (defense is too good to let go unless you can get Damon or something like that) and Dye can hit 5, PK can hit 4, but there is no 3 hitter anywhere and Everett can't hit anymore.

Great post, great article.

This woman also said that Bush has to pull the military out of occupied New Orleans. Drudge Report I really don't know how accurate this is, but it seems about right. This is just some other radical that has latched on for a ride on the popularity train. Joe McCarthy did the same thing. He never actually cared about communism, he just liked being in the spotlight so he dragged a whole nation down with him. This is another demonstration of the silent majority. A lot of people in the country support Bush, they just aren't on the radio or in movies and don't bother to skip their jobs to show it. And wasn't this the same woman who supported the war when it started? I can't find where I read that.

To make this a better argument, I would outline what you think would make for better schools. I know we can all assume, but that isn't good enough if you want to get noticed. My problem with what you are saying in this, from what I can tell, is that you assume that if you pay more money to teachers you will get a better education in high school. That simply isn't true. You could pay a professor a million dollars to teach high school in these places that are "not well off" and there is not proof that those kids learn anything. If you don't place responsibility on those who have to learn then you are fighting a losing battle. I went to Stagg High School. There, they separated the honors students and the "less willing to learn" in order to help them further with individual attention in a program called the "Academy." I have heard that the Academy has been taken away because it was a waste of money. I don't think that "well to do" parents don't want to help other kids, it's more like they don't want to give money to a failing cause. That's where state budgeting comes into play. Where would YOU send most of the money? No Child Left Behind makes no sense. I know because my cousin is a teacher in the city. However, you aren't accounting for other issues. If funding were really the problem I think that would have been fixed by now.

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Sep 23, 2005 -> 10:42 PM) With all due respect, this is a riduculous thread. Go to New York sometime and see how much the Met fans hate the Yankees, and vice-versa. Last I counted, they have 5 championships between them since '86. Somehow it doesn't matter over there. Absolutely correct. I don't understand what fan consideration has to do with anything. In fact, I saw a Tribune reader say something to this effect in the paper. They claimed that the Sox were bad becuase the fans didn't know baseball and the park had bad food...of course that turned out to be a Cubs fans, but the fact remains that fans support their team when they are going good and the teams results should not be affected by whatever support they get. Futility has nothing to do with fans, only the team. Oh yeah, to agree with other posters, I don't care what the Cubs do.

The problem with ID is that the "other influence" is God, thus it shouldn't be in our schools. My second point is this, from what I can tell, and I'm not a scholar on this topic, ID bases itself in evolution, then makes claims about other powers. The fact is this, you are teaching to high school students who can only go so deep into the science of evolution anyway. When I learned it, we did Punnet Squares and bred fruit flies. There was no need to talk about ID because the level high schoolers get to is not in depth enough to make them question the science. I may be having trouble getting my point across here but all I'm saying is that high schoolers may not care about what is right about evolution or ID, and even if they do, they will learn the basics about ID from learning the small amount about evolution that they get. Plus, I really doubt that teachers what to deal with another hot button issue like religion. I think these teachers have enough to worry about.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 6, 2005 -> 12:36 PM) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001106/wiener Is The Nation a credible source. I thought it was ultra liberal. And didn't Nixon get the US out of Vietnam? I took a Vietnam War Era class and all of this is acurate except interpretation differs. Even the article states that Theiu would have ignored peace talks without prodding from Nixon, and that's the way I learned it in my class. While it was wrong to do without question it really made no difference. Anyway, here's a story that I heard about LBJ because it's kinda funny. He was having a meeting with some aids and was asked why the US continued to fight in Vietnam. He stands up from his desk, unzips his pants, displays an erection and says "This...this is why we are in Vietnam." I know it seems ridiculous but if when you hear about LBJ it seems true. By the way, don't assume that Nixon was some horrible person because of Watergate. He was paranoid but not a bad president. And he really believed in the power of family and hard work. If he hadn't been so insane he would be regarded well today.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 6, 2005 -> 12:58 PM) my generation is f***ed... wow... i'm kind of depressed about this. lets see they'll stop all abortions, take away whatever rights gay people still have, and toss all poor people over the edge of a cliff. *sigh* i'm with Juggs and the whole end of the world thing. Ugh. If you read my post I said that Roberts is a "true conservative" which means that most likely he won't bother policy making but only uphold laws set in place. You know, the way the Constitution says the Supreme Court is supposed to do things. Though Roberts does not agree with abortion, he has also said that it is the courts decision and now has to be upheld. It was this straying from the Constitution that lead to abortion being "legal," which, by the way, is stated no where. Oh, and if you read the opinions of the court about abortion you would realize that the decision is ludicrous. Something about abortion being ok because of the penumbra between 4 different amendments. I'm not saying abortion should be allowed or not but make sure you know what the debate is. Plus, over turning decisions is highly unlikely and extraordinarily rare. As for the end of the world, remember, there are plenty of people who think the end of the world will be caused by allowing gays to marry and letting women have abortions. Doom and gloom no matter which way you turn. Believe me, Roberts is the best democrats could hope for and he will do a good job.

QUOTE(56789 @ Sep 4, 2005 -> 11:01 PM) Plus im pretty sure the supreme court would have to agree on the appointment. If i was on the court, I dont think I want an outsider to jump right in as cheif justice. I would want someone with experiance to have the job. But I dont know anything at all about John Roberts and maybe he is someone that they would trust to do the job. No, they don't have to agree to my knowledge. The Chief Justice has to be appointed by the Senate. Even if a judge was moved up to the position he/she would have to be questioned before the Senate. It's not like the Chief get 2 votes. As for Roberts, he's what could be considered a "true conservative." While Republicans have a lot of issues involving religion and so forth, Roberts, I think, is more of a "the government that governs least governs best" type which is close to my ideal. I think he will be great justice. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 5, 2005 -> 08:38 PM) So let's see. On the right, we have "The locals screwed the pooch and because they folded under the immense pressure of the situation by not minimizing the damage in the first place, they are to blame". On the left, we have " Yeah, the locals screwed up, but it's all Georgie's fault, since FEMA dropped the ball big time AFTER the fact." It seems to me that both of these are true, and are not mutually exclusive. If the local people would have done thier parts to any degree of competency, the damage to human lives would have been cut dramatically, lessening the things that FEMA had to take care of. I am not saying that FEMA would have done much better had the locals done their jobs, but there sure would be alot more people alive if the governor, mayor and NO director of Emergency Services did their jobs. All the Bush bashers on here are quick to criticize the FEMA director for getting his job from a 'buddie', and then screwing it up. And rightly so. However, the same goes for the NO Director of Emergency Services, who was personally apponited by the Mayor, and screwed up. I think you've nailed it well. People forget why FEMA turned away all those supplies and food, they weren't told by the governor that they were needed. The mayor admitted to calling FEMA the day after the storm. What good does that do? The city was under water by then and it was almost impossible to get in. Furthermore, it was the mayor who put all those people in the Superdome and didn't get enough food and water. The mayor ran for election on a platform of people helping themselves and said that the city should not require government assistance. Didn't work out well here. I know that many people will complain that FEMA could see what was going on because of TV. Well that's not the way it works. FEMA needs to be ok'd by the governor in order to do anything. Bush has NOTHING to do with this. There's a reason why the country runs as a federalist state. There are duties that the president can't do when he has so much else to handle. Therefore, the states handle emergency situations like this and if they need help, then there is a Federal Emergency Management Agency to aid them. They, however, were not called in until after the storm and by then it was too late. People on the left disregard the duties that are given to the state because they expect federal help for everything. That just isn't the way it works. My hope is that everyone learns the lesson that nature is not to be taken lightly. By the way, for anyone who is interested in the other side of global warming read Michael Crighton's book State of Fear. Since I'm not a scientist I'm not going to bother getting into issue but I liked the book.

While homefield is important, so is playing well on the road. Remember, in the ALDS it's a 2-2-1 schedule, which means that you have to shut the door on the road. While it's good to have homefield advantage, it's also nice to know that the Sox can play well away and will be able to shut the when given the opportunity.

QUOTE(Antonio Osuna @ Sep 5, 2005 -> 02:22 PM) Wow. Just wow. Our 6th Starter -- 6th!!! -- shuts down the best offense in all of baseball. Impressive. Agreed, most teams don't have 5 decent starters...or even 3. Right now the Sox have 6. Plus they have 2 good closers (Jenks would have looked better if Iguchi makes that play) and a few setup men. Speaking of Jenks, he made Ramirez look silly in the ninth. That was a special moment.

First, I always thought it was the teams responsibility to pay broadcasters so I hope I'm understanding this right. However, it amazes me that you don't find the money to keep a broadcasting duo together after they are rated the best in the league. Here's one: how about cutting North's paycheck to something that isn't ludicrous and give a bit to Rooney, North sucks anyway.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 2, 2005 -> 01:23 PM) They allow their political opinions cloud their sports talk too often. Yeah, that's a constant source of anoyance. They aren't political analysts so I don't know why they think anyone should care what they have to say. Otherwise I like that show.