NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) In 2004, the last year for which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has complete statistics, there were 16,137 reported murders in the United States. Iraq Casualties by year 2003 486 2004 848 2005 846 2006 126 Total 2306 2306 plus tens of thousands of Iraqis. That does tend to add to the impact.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) I luuuuuuuv Thome I see you left out Gload.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) So, when news media with blatantly-liberal columnists/reporters saturate their papers/newscasts with these stories day after day after day, they're only reporting the news and are not at all attempting to dictate policy? I don't see how you can consider the reporting of a soldier's death a liberal saturation of the news. It would be reported regardless of who was in office, guaranteed.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) Yeah well border patrol is a lot more lax with Canada than it is with Mexico, no matter what the politicians tell you. But eventually things will tighten up with Canada as long as the big brother trend in this country continues. Already has on the Canadian border. For one thing, the personnel at the Int'l Falls/Ft. Frances crossing (Minnesota/Ontario) are in much greater numbers and appear a lot mor ewell-armed than they did a few years back. Also, I used to be able to cross the border in the BWCA/Quetico area just by checking in with the park rangers on the Canadian side. Now, you have to get a special access visa ahead of time to cross the border outside the normal crossing points. So some things have already changed.

QUOTE(Chi Town Sox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) If someone could PLEASE help me - I am going to be going to Windsor, Canada tomorrow for the weekend with around 10 total people going - Most of us are hesitant or cannot bring a certified birth certificate - I have had many friends go there with and without certified certificates and were able to cross - Yet I am reading online NOT to bring a photocopy - If anyone has been there recently, will we all be alright crossing with a copy and say 2 ID's? Unless you plan on crossing in the backcountry, a driver's license will do. EDIT: You should find Canada's immigration and customs web page and check for sure.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) Which is why that maybe we should allow some part of this to be handled at the state level. I was getting more at the idea that such things should not be part of food labeling at all. They aren't about food, for one thing. So I think the states AND the Feds would be wasting their time and our money by pursuing such chemical iterations. Let the feds set standards for food safety, and the if states, localities, businesses or unversities find reason for new standards, lets keep them in one place.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) You individually may see no need for 50 different regulations, but so what? What if the state of Maine votes as a legislature that is does want the disclosure of certain toxins in its food? Thats fine with me, why should I care? That is state's rights. That is what conservatives have preached since the Roosevelt administration. Its my opinion that the conservatives sold out states rights to a powerful lobby that wanted to decrease its operating costs. That seems pretty simple to me And for many things, I agree, because either the the US Constitution is stretched too far by Congress, and/or because it is much more efficient and purposeful for states to handle certain things (education, for example). But standards of the safety of food in this country is not served well by the states. It makes for much higher costs of doing business, so you end up paying more for groceries. And nothing is gained.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) Ok, so let me do this with numbers. So let's say something is toxic when you're exposed to 1 gram of the stuff. Let's say there's 1/2 gram of that toxin in a particular foodstuff in a year. Now, in the middle of no where in Wyoming, there's fairly clean air. So if I eat that foodstuff for a year, I get exposed to 1/2 of a gram of that toxin. But because it's at low levels around me, I never approach the gram I need. Now, let's say I live right next to a highway in California, a short ways from a port and some large manufacturing. Let's say these places put out that same chemical, and in the course of a year I inhale 1/2 gram of that toxin. Now, let's also say I want to consume the same amount of that foodstuff as the person in Wyoming. In 1 case, the body would easily remove the stuff, while in the other, it would reach toxic levels in the body. So no, something is not always equally bad in each state. It can depend on the amount you're exposed to just in your everyday activities. Briefly, I don't think the FDA should have to worry about that in food labeling. Aside from the fact that the scenario you painted would be pretty rare (some specific toxin being present in some specific food and also one person's environment), you cannot expect the government to consider every possible reaction between some food and some other problem. Its not realistic.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) When someone gets on a plane, nobody expects terrorists to take over the cockpit and fly it into a skyscraper. That's news. When American soldiers invade another country, one expects that they'll meet resistance in one form or another and that they'll incur casualties. Daily front-page news stories that include a tally of soldiers lost mainly serves political purpose. You mean that soldiers are being killed in a war? No way! Is that clear enough? Showing a toll of losses in a war is not new, nor is it political. It is news in the US when our soldiers die, even if it is every day (and so it should be). This was done for the last few wars, and will be for any future ones. It has nothing to do with politics.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) I actually do see that there very well could be a need, for multiple reasons. For example, it's entirely possible that in some states, you could be exposed to more of a toxic chemical than you are in other states, just due to where you are. In Utah, I probably find less toxins around me than in downtown L.A., for example. So, if getting up to a certain intake of a toxin is the problem...then I'm much more likely to have problems with the amount in a product in California than I am in Utah. Except that the foods we eat are largely not local, so locality becomes irrelevant. If we bought all our food from our local commune, then this is obviously a non-issue. So for food labeling, if some toxin is bad for you in California, it is equally bad for you in Utah.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) Yes. Yes it does. That's one of my biggest beefs with this administration. I agree with this, on many issues. Though on this one, I see no need for 50 different states' ideas of safe foods.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) There's no celebratory aspect to the post, and yes the detainees are getting transferred to other installations (at least it seems like the don't need to be extraordinarily renedered any palce). But using a place that was already burned in the Iraqi psyche as a site of attrocities under Saddam as a prison was not the smartest idea, even if we hadn't gone and commited our own attrocities there. It was an ignorant insult to the Iraqi people, IMO. I guess I took the exclamation point in the thread title as such. Once again the electronic medium deceives me.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) left for the liberal media?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_abughraib_dc I see no reason to celebrate. This is PR plain and simple. The prison itself was never the problem. This is like buying a new car for someone after they totalled one during a DUI accident, and hoping they will be more careful.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) I think it's fairly difficult to say that Islam is getting along with other religions very well in almost any country right now. India, which you cite, for example, has had a couple of bombings lately, and just shot and killed one Islamic suspect. Not to mention their border clashes with Pakistan. Turkey has had plenty of problems with its Kurdish population, and just had a suicide bombing today. Let's also remember a couple of other things...most notably, this poll is probably also being taken after weeks of riots over cartoons depicting Mohammed, which by all accounts went over pretty poorly in this country, what with that whole "freedom of speech" thing we have. And we've also seen the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, showing support for a terrorist group. And we've seen the outbreak of Sunni/Shi'a violence in Iraq, basically an entirely intra-Islam conflict. These days, the folks who say that Islam is a religion of peace are still right, but there's a lot of people who are dead set in proving those folks wrong. And the numbers of people trying to prove that statement wrong are clearly on the increase. Let me clarify. Muslim is not getting along with other religions well. And guess what? None of the major religions get along well. Never have. I am not talking about the Muslim "body". I am speaking of Muslim individuals. And in India, aside from the Pakistani battles (which at this point have little to do with religion), sectarian violence is extremely low for a country with a billion people split amongst Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists. There was a small spike, a few bombings and some mostly peaceful protests, around Bush's visit. As for Turkey, they fear in independent Kurdistan more than their own Muslim population, so I don't think that is about religion. I am just trying to keep the focus on people, not billion-person categories. To say Islam is a religion of peace, or to attribute a particularly violent nature to it, are both false. The same is true of Christianity. Both religions have histories of war, violence, and an unwillingness to accept those that are different (as YASNY has said). Therefore, I am saddened when I see people applying their disgust with the violence to an entire sixth of the world, instead of against the violators themselves.

Oh what the heck... 1) A White Sox starter will win 20 games (might as well leave it the same): FACT: JG with 21 2) Joe Borchard will get the last roster spot FICTION: Gload gets it, Borch is traded or released 3) Lopez will be the 2nd left handed reliever FACT 4) Thome will hit more than 35 homers FACT (40) 5) Uribe will still be hitting 2nd at the All-star break FACT 6) Javier Vazquez will win 15 games FACT (more like 18) 7) Brian Anderson will hit over .260 FICTION (.235) 8) Jon Garland and Jose Contreras will have ERA's under 4 (please elaborate if not) FICTION: Garland will, but not Contreras 9) Scott Podsednik will steal more than 45 bases FACT (unless he pulls something) 10) Bobby Jenks will save more than 35 games FICTION: I fear he won't last the season due to health issues 11) Tadahito Iguchi will hit over .280 FACT: Tadahito will break out, after a lousy Aprol 12) Jermaine Dye will play more than 145 games FICTION: More like 130 13) Joe Crede will hit over .260 FACT: My guess is .268 30 70 14) Paul Konerko will hit over 40 homeruns and drive in more than 100 again FACT: My guess is .270 45 110 15) The Sox will improve their team ERA (3.61) TOO CLOSE TO CALL: They will be very close to the same ERA 16) The Sox will make a trade for a major league player at the deadline FACT if a starter is injured, FICTION if not 17) The Sox will finish in the top 5 in the AL in runs scored FACT 18) Jermaine Dye will drive in 90 runs FICTION: Won't happen from the 5-spot behind Thome/Konerko 19) The Sox will win the AL Central (this one better be fact) FACT: KC and CLE battle for second place, MIN in 4th, then DET 20) The Sox will return to the World Series FACT

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 02:24 AM) Another day, another bill out of Congress which is bad for people, good for industry. So, not only does it overrule much more stringent state protections, especially in California, and potentially denies consumers access to any information that a company with a good lobbyist doesn't want them to have (think that approval process will be fair, nonpartisan, and unbiased, with the singular goal of protecting the public?), but it's also going to cost taxpayers $100 million dollars. Something for everyone, except people who don't like cancer or taxes, I guess. It should all be routed through the FDA anyway. This particular thing, safety of food, seems to logically fall to the federal level to me - Illinois doesn't need a safety label that Indiana does not, and vice versa. Having hundreds of standards out there is an unnecessary cost to businesses. So I personally agree with the move. If a state wants to petition for a warning lable, they should appeal to the FDA. If rejected, there should be a court-based remedy to make their case, as a check against FDA beauracracy. If that remedy is missing, then that should be added. And there should certainly be a way to have all current state-level labels reviewed for addition, and the states should be allowed to continute using them until they have been reviewed.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) We have a difference of opinion on the media/Bush thing, but that's cool. Yeah, unfortunately, the result is the same regardless of which of us may be correct. Hatred is building, and that can't be good.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:14 AM) Here's my thinking on this. The media shows violence in Iraq to push their liberal agenda and undermine Bush. After so many hours of watching violence in the name of Allah, the American public naturally starts to get a jaded view of Islam. The non-stop violence in Iraq and Israel/Palestine certainly is a big player. I don't believe the media is trying to make Bush look bad, though - I think they are showing what sells: violence and anything spectacular. Unfortunately, that means we don't see the daily camera shots from India, Turkey and any number of other countries where Islam gets along just fine with other religions (isolated incidents aside). So the view is skewed. Definitely sad in any case.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) But, Bush's approval numbers are down, so it's all good. Sort of ironic that Americans' views on Bush are statistically correlated with that of Americans' views on Islam.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 8, 2006 -> 07:40 PM) jimmy carter needs to shut the hell up and go build another house. thats all hes good for anyway. in conclusion, i hate jimmy carter. just thought everyone here would like to know. We're overwhelmed with surprise.

I'll put my money on Gload for the final spot over Borch, and here is why... 1. The attitude problem thing with Gload is a non-issue. If it was an issue, Ozzie wouldn't be talking him up. And frankly, Borch has said a lot more things in the category of attitide problem than Gload has. And, as Charlotte folks point out, they both bring a decent attitude. 2. Gload has proven he can hit at the major league level. Borch has not. 3. Borch has more trade value, due in part to name recognition and very high claimed potential. He is much more likely to be traded than Gload. These things outweigh the one big negative for Gload - lack of arm strength. And after his shoulder surgery, we'll see how the arm is. Your 2006 bench: Widger Ozuna Mack Cintron Gload

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 08:00 PM) Yeah, you're also at risk for contracting Hepatitis and a whole host of other diseases, like Mono. Better to let someone else save this guy's life. The guy wasn't wearing a sign that said "I Have AIDS." He was having a heart attack. I would worry a lot more about Hep, particularly a resistant strain, than i would be about HIV. It is a tough personal call to make. I carry a mask in the car, and have one at home. I have a healthy fear of communicable diseases, thanks to my days in EMS. But even if I lacked the gear, I'd do the CPR, unless I had a specific contraindication (needle hanging from his arm and bleeding at the gums). Just my choice.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 06:15 PM) But see, then you run into a problem...where do you draw the line between a city worth the risk and a city not worth it. San Francisco and Los Angeles both sit right along major fault lines which could do real damage and kill a lot of people. Seattle and Portland, maybe even more so. Should we decide not to rebuild those if they're totally lost? Or should we not decide to spend the money now to retrofit buildings before the big one hits? New York City was struck by 2 hurricanes in the 1800's. The 2nd one killed several hundred people. With the skyscrapers now, even a category 2 would be amplified and would be an absolute disaster. Would you not want New York rebuilt? These are the problems with living on a planet like this. There is significant risk to building almost anywhere that you actually would want to build. Want to be on an ocean? You risk earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes, depending on which waterway you're on. Want to be in the heartland? Drought, lack of drinking water supplies, high cost of transportation. These are not easy questions to answer...how much risk is too much? I think there is fairly significant economic and cultural value to having the city on the delta. It's one of the biggest ports in the world, a major tourist destination, a major historical site, and I think its rebuilding probably justifies the expense just as much as rebuilding any number of other cities would. All valid points. I am not saying the city should be left out completely, BTW. Just some of the lowest areas most likely to be flooded. Take this opportunity to scale things back. And there are subtle layers to risk. Yeah, a disaster COULD hit any city. But the risk level is near 100% for a major flooding hurricane in New Orleans in a fifty year period. The chances of a C3 or higher hurricane hitting NY in a fifty year period is, I am sure, much less.

5 things I'd like to say to my fellow 'busters... 1. SS2K5, Kap, Rex, Flaxx, Balta, Chaos... I don't want any of you to stop posting. I don't agree with everything any of you say, but I enjoy the times when I can interact with all of you in intelligent discussion. It happens. Yes, it sometimes seems like it is the minority of the time. But it is there, and I would miss it. So to you regulars (not just the listed, but others I have forgotten), I hope that you stick around. 2. I agree that ignoring the sniping and baiting is the right way to go - though I myself don't always hold to that. There are people who post little one and two line agitations and flames in here, either out of laziness or trying to bait someone to become angry. I try to ignore them. Sometimes I succeed. 3. I must say, no matter the tone, I have learned things in the last few months posting here. And not just about human nature and blogging. I have learned a multitude of factual information that I was not aware of. And I have gained new perspectives on some issues, and sometimes I have even had changes of heart. If others are not learning anything, that makes me sad. I see a lot of things to learn here. 4. I do think there is some truth to the argument that the reason there is so much Bush flaming in here is that this administration has done so many things so poorly. Even the people on this board on the conservative side acknowledge this. But there are other contributing factors that are perhaps less well-reasoned, or just circumstantial. Some people are lazy, and want an easy target. Others just like to find something in politics to be angry about. But there is also the fact that we have SO much access to SO much information, that GWB has become by far the most naked President in history. So, yeah, we see a lot of negatives. I think we need to keep that media penetration and information availability in mind when analyzing our perspectives on this administration. 5. Thank you. To everyone I have talked, debating, argued, agreed and disagreed with on this board. I feel I am more whole because of my exposure to your thoughts. Thanks.