Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Aug 24, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) There's a lot of blame to go around for the Sox woes since the ASB. However, NONE of that blame should go to Thome, Konerko, Crede, Dye or most of the bullpen. I don't think the crappy play has been anyONE's fault, but Konerko has been sucking it up as of late. Yeah, his numbers are on par, but how many double plays has he hit into during key situations in the last 5 games with the twins and tigers? I can think of at least three crucial opportunities he let pass with a crappy slow roller to SS or 2b. Hawk is smoking crack. Crede is our MVP thus far. He hits the most clutch shots to either win us games or get us back into games (see last night).

Assuming Thome is out for a few days, what about bringing up Fields to play 1b? Lets see what he's made of. He's been killing the ball in Triple A, hitting .311 with 18 homers and a .525 slugging percentage.

QUOTE(mreye @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) I don't see any problem. They made a donation. Big deal. As little as it seems she still made a poor ethical choice. She should have, at the very least, told the parties involved about it and they could have requested she be replaced.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) Gas has fallen to as low as 2.62 a gallon here. (Actually the lowest station in town is about 3 blocks from my house.) Wow. Pssh, lucky you. I paid 3.49 a gallon at a BP on Broadway/Irving park.

But that's not global warming so much as wasting or abusing natural resources. I think that's entirely different than the message Al "i'm serial you guys" Gore wants to make: i.e. that if we don't stop driving SUV's the entire coast line of the US will be Katrina 2 (damn George W). My using my Ford SUV isn't going to create a new hurricane Katrina as much as he'd like to think. Me using that car has an effect, no doubt about that, but so does an increase in flatulence from grazing cows. I'm not saying that humans shouldn't alter their practices and be more "environmentally friendly," but to say that we're ruining the earth and will soon kill ourselves is ludacris. That's not my argument. My argument is stop assuming theories are fact. Just because one theory has more evidence than another doesn't a) dispute the first and B) make the second pure fact. I complete agree with this point. But you can't tell me WHY it's happening. How come a lady bug has PERFECTLY straight lines and circles on it's body. According to the natural selection theory (which many have begin to question btw), there must have been thousands and thousands of lady bugs with all different shapes and sizes of patterns. The one that lives today just happened to outlast the rest. Nevermind WHERE the patterns came from, but HOW does one generation of lady bug simply create new patterns on it's back. It's different from a physical evolution, where physical activity changes bone structures in one generation that are slowly evolved through that species lineage and genes. Until they answer that question it's still a THEORY, regardless of the proof that we see SOME changes over time. You know more about the science of this than I do, so I'll defer to your expertise. However, I guess I need more in the way of proof that our contribution to the CO2 issues weren't already happening naturally. Again, not saying we aren't doing ANYTHING, but when glaciers have melted numerous times in the past, it's hard for me to jump at a theory that explains the reason it's happening THIS time is our fault. We just don't have enough data yet to judge. And even if 150 years down the line the argument remains, we STILL might not know because the Earth could just be in a hotter period for currently unknown reasons. It's the best we've come up with so far, yeah, but that doesn't mean morons like Al Gore should be "teaching" the public this information as if it's fact. A law of physics and theories about how we came to be and our effect on the impending disaster of a planet are a little different. And again, i'm not saying that because science has failed in the past never trust science. I'm saying it's wrong for people to assume that a theory, even with "evidence," that still has so many unanswered questions shouldn't be unquestionable fact, anymore so than an old book with a man and his white beard.

I understand what you are saying here and in your earlier post about how inductive reasoning can't be thrown away simply because an ancient text says something different. BUT, I see no reason why an answer derived from inductive reasoning is concrete evidence that something happened. My problem comes when science uses inductive reasoning to purport something in which they have very little observations or history of. Case in point: Global Warming. You're a geologist. Looking at your rocks and land masses and land forms, etc etc you're able to study the effects of the weather on the land right? And it's been proven (by said means) that temperatures have increased and decreased dramatically over the last hundred thousand years. BUT, scientists of today rely on 100 years worth of data (a good chunk of which is probably unreliable) to inductively reason that WE are the cause of some impending global warming disaster, never mind the fact that the Earth has been both ice and fire many times over. Can they show a cause and effect of human interaction with the Earth that coincides with a change in the climate? Sure. But does that mean that the human interaction CAUSED the change in climate? No. Having said that, I think the same problem exists with evolution. You can inductively reason all you want that all these bones added up equals what we are today. But simply relying on that is not enough. 10 years ago the scientific world thought DDT was going to ruin the world and kill off every living thing. It didn't. 10 years ago people thought that cell phones were going to cause cancer of the brain. It didn't. There are many more scientific hiccups over history, all of which used inductive reasoning to arrive at their conclusion, most of which are proven to be false today. All I say is question what you hear, from both religious nuts to scientific wacko's and everyone in between. Nothing is fact when it's been hypothesized for so short of a time. I think it’s as ridiculous for religious people to deny any form of evolution as much as I think it’s ridiculous that scientists think evolution is pure, unquestionable fact with what they have to work with. It’s a theory with some bite. That’s all.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 07:58 AM) They could turn off the pumps and get other OPEC nations to embargo the US. Boy, those would be fun times of $10/ gallon gas. Are the Saudi's going to take up their cause? I doubt it. And again, I doubt the US would start bombing Iran alone. If the situation became that serious the UN, as weak they are, would be leading the effort, even if it does involve our own technology/resources. Are OPEC nations going to refuse oil to all modernized nations? Highly unlikely.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 03:41 PM) Your perception that Iran's distance from us would insulate us from the impact of retaliation isn't really realistic. They could do plenty - and they don't need missiles to do it. But a nuclear attack was the subject of the thread and the most serious threat. And what could they do? This being a conversation of if's and but's, IF we were to bomb them in that way, and IF they retaliated, the entire world would rain down on them. Their retaliation would be mitigated I think.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 8, 2006 -> 10:47 AM) First, what you are suggesting for Iran is exactly what Israel is likely to do, if they were to attack. But that is because Israel could only do just that. Here is the problem with just bombing Iran - they aren't Libya. Iran has a large military, and the resources and motivation to strike back - in many, many ways. If you just bomb them and hope all is going to be fine and dandy, you are dreaming. Iran will do anything it can in response to get the US - attack its neighbors, further destabilize Iraq, redirect the Hezbollah funding to go after the West, etc. You bomb Iran, you sentence yourself to a large scale conflict. That in itself may not be a bad thing anyway, and maybe its needed. But a simple bomb-and-run like we did in Libya is not in the cards here. As for the Iraq war's success, I would like to know what you think was successful. The fact that there was no military resistance to speak of? I think what is more telling is what you say about the miltary's marketing of the war. In the first Gulf War, Schwarzkopf and Powell talked up a long, involved war, how tough the Republican Guard were, etc. They played the worst case scenario in the press. Which is (duh) SMART. These bozos who planned this one were too busy telling people to expect parades in Baghdad to realize what an awful bog they were becoming mired in. They did the opposite, and sure enough, it bit them in the rear. Our only short-term goal with Iran is to keep them from becoming a nuclear power. My point was this could be achieved without a ground troop invasion of the country. Any action that would be necessary, in those terms, would not overextend our military nor be impossible due to limitations in military resources. We have stockpiles of ready-to-use missiles all over the country. As far as any retaliation goes, that’s fine. Let the people in the Middle East fight THEIR war. So long as Iran poses no threat to our security via the nuke or ubber-long range missiles, I could care less what they do. In a scenario in which the US (or hopefully the vagina-laden UN) would need to strike Iran, the rest of the world would be waiting to pounce on them for any sort of retaliation. I don't care how strong their army is (which I can't imagine is all that powerful, but admittedly I don't know anything about it); sending a global taskforce to the region would quickly diminish any threat they may pose. I wasn't meaning their marketing of the war was bad, though admittedly the fear-factor was over played. I meant that they should never have coined the phrase “shock and awe.” As soon as they kept spouting that people were imagining some chaotic event whereby everyone in the world would be awed by what they saw. In reality it wasn't all that exciting unless you think about the logistics of the whole thing. Being able to send missiles from various points across the region and from different mediums (air, land, sea) and hit targets the size of a window was, for the lack of a better word, awesome. I still think the war, from a military perspective, was successful. And even though it’s still not going as everyone would hope (the instant-gratification that “hey we free’d you, go play nice”), the fact is we’re gaining much needed experience in street-to-street combat that is probably going to define the war against terrorism. And not to rehash old arguments, but your point of the Gulf War doesn't really apply. They could have said we were going after the stockpile of cheese in the middle of Baghdad and people would have been excited about it because Saddam attacked a defenseless country that happens to harbor an interest in every industrialized nation’s oil. No matter what the real purpose of this war was (I'd imagine any pro-war argument I'd give would be met with a ton of counter-arguments, so I'm not even going to bother…), marketing it would be much more difficult than the Gulf War.

I'm failing to see why we couldn't stop Iran without using ANY ground troops. If the aim of the whole "war" is to stop Iran from building/using nukes, why couldn't we drop a few nicely placed 1000lb bombs on their plants/factories? We wouldn't have to invade them to reverse their nuclear capabilities. Just destroy any advancements they've made and it'll give the world another 10-15 years to deal with the crazy douche-bags hellbent on destroying anything anti fascist-islam. As much as most people think the Iraq war was a "failure," it was actually proven, militarily speaking, to be quite a success on most fronts. New technology, new tactics and new systems were all used for the first time in Iraq with a lot of success. The whole "shock and awe" campaign would have been an amazing story had they not chosen to publicize, with a ridiculous phrase, what they were about to do. I think that whole campaign proved that we have the capabilities to pinpoint a target as small as a person or as big as a building and destroy it from hundreds of miles away. We could use the same type of campaign against Iran and negate any threat they might pose without sending any ground troops into the country.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) At least he didn't blame it all on the Jews, or call Hillary "Sugar Tits". Oh come on, we all knows it's the Jews fault. Everything is. (joke politically correct police! just a joke!)

Problem: this was written by a Kennedy, which means either: 1. he was drinking when researching/writing this 2. he was drinking and driving when he was researching/writing this 3. he was drinking, driving and running off the road killing a woman when he was researching/writing this 4. he was drinking, driving and running off the road hitting a baracade by the capital building when he was researching/writing this And before you ask, drinking, driving and researching/writing all at the same time is difficult. That's what makes the Kennedy's so amazing.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) Ah, so finally I get you guys to start admitting it...you don't think that any of the rules of war should exist. So here's my question to anyone who agrees with him...why exactly do you think Saddam Hussein should be in prison? He was facing possible insurrections that threatened the lives of his army, the people in his regime, and his regime itself. He responded to that with whatever force he had available to him, whether it was collective punishment against large civilian populations, torture, random imprisonments, etc. You guys are sitting here arguing to me that Israel should have the right to do whatever it wants in fighting a campaign against folks you label terrorists, rules of war be damned. So why does that not apply to Hussein? Why did that not apply to Milosevic? "folks you label terrorists"--so are you saying Hezbollah aren't terrorists? The same group who strap bombs on themselves and blow up city buses/markets?? I'd like to know what you think of the people "we" labeled terrorists on 9/11. Are they simply "freedom fighters?" Saddam is, hopefully, put to death because he threw BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS at POOR CIVILIANS (among other criminals acts to "his" people). There is no comparison between poor Shiites (prisoners of a tyranny) throwing rocks at Saddams troops to Hezbollah KIDNAPPING AND BOMBING AND MURDERING Israeli troops and citizens for DECADES. No one is arguing that Israel is justified in throwing biological weapons at Lebanon if the want too. They are, however, justified in doing whatever is necessary to protect themselves within the confines of the rules of war (which begs the question whether such rules apply in a non-state to state engagement). I think most people would agree that they need to be as careful as possible and they need to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. BUT, at the end of they day it's Israeli's versus terrorists and they have, and should, use all means necessary to protect their lives. If this wasn't a "right" or "exception" to the rules of war, the "rules" would abolish wars all together. I sympathize with your opinions, but at the same time you can't take 21st century reasoning and apply it to ass-backwards people still stuck in 1000 AD. It just doesn't work. The sooner people realize that the faster this "problem" of terrorism can be resolved.

I'm so tired of this hippy BS. For some reason people opposed to the war lost all sense of logic and any grasp on reality. Let's rewind the tape 5 years. What do you think happened on a daily basis in Iraq when Saddam was in power, assuming there were 50 gazillion journalists from all over the world watching/covering every inch of the country (including all of the hidden bunkers/jails)?? More importantly, look at our own country on a daily basis. People die, women get raped, businesses are robbed, accidents happen and people get hurt. For Christs sake stop holding our troops and government up to the task of creating Heaven in the middle of Hell. I've had multiple family members (both high level and low) come back with EXTREMELY POSITIVE outlooks on the future of the Iraqi people. What you don't hear, and what is often not reported because it fails to sell papers, is that everyday schools open, hospitals open, public works projects are finished and overall life continues to get better and better. Is it dangerous and unstable? Sure, but so what? It's progress albeit at a snails pace.

From CNNSI: • The Braves are shopping Andruw Jones around, hoping to land young pitching in return for the eight-time Gold Glove center fielder. Atlanta asked the White Sox for right-hander Brandon McCarthy but were rejected. They are still in talks with the Red Sox for a package that may include left-hander Jon Lester, who is 5-1 with a 3.49 ERA during his rookie season. I love Brandon McCarthy, but come on, if this is a straight up deal I'd do it in a heartbeat. Move Anderson to left, bench pods. That would be a huge bat in the lineup but would also solidify our outfield defense.

What would you give for pitchers that have ERA's over 4.50 and nearly 10 mil a year?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) It seems like the Tigers best prospects are both hurt and with the Tigers now having a bigger lead I think they are starting to think and wonder whether they should risk making a big move. The Angels aren't a team known to overpay while the Twins could definately use him but they may be hesitant to give up whats necessary. Nor do I really think they have the mixture of prospects that the Sox have. A lower budget team like the Twins can't afford to give up a ton of prospects for a guy they may lose. A 100 mill payroll team has a bit more leeway. On Around the Horn, Marriotti really stuck up for BA and thats nice to see. I actually like Jay on around the horn for the most part. Blasphemy!

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) pitching AND defense is the key part there. A Soriano-Pods-Dye outfield is pretty horrendous defensively. Balls would be landing in the gaps all over the place, making our pitching look even worse. Umm... have you seen Dye play right field this year? He's damn near gold glove caliber with some of his catches and his arm. I highly doubt they would be moving Anderson out of the starting line up. He's been hitting better and no one on our team is as good on defense. Soriano is no worse, probably better than, Pods.

I don't think our lack of arms in the minors is a big issue. Our best prospects (Fields, Sweeney, Owens, etc) are all positions that we have filled with studs for the next few years (Crede, Dye, Konerko, Thome...) We have a GM that is great at making trades. I think if we need pitching we can trade for it. *assuming of course that we pick up crede's option/sign him and we do the same with Dye after the 2007 season.

IMO this would be a terrible trade. We're slowly becoming the Yankees. Building the best line-up 1-9 does not win World Series Championships. Pitching is our biggest weakness and giving up our best major-league ready "prospect" for a 3 month rental is not a smart move. Here's to hoping that IF this is true that Kenny will turn around and deal Soriano to another team for a top SP.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 03:05 PM) I still care, because unlike most, I still realize even if it isn't on the Daily Show, it is still important. I still believe the wrong thing was done by totally dropping this issue all of the sudden. I think it is pretty telling when the attendance drops by 98%. Was this EVER a real issue? Or was this a media-spun issue that the douche-bags in Washington made a big deal of to get some mid-term election votes. It would take all of 5 seconds to "fix" the problem. Put up a wall, grant citizenship to anyone who can prove they've been here working for a couple years, pay back taxes for the years they've been here and stop screwing the system. The reason that the problem isn't and won't get fixed anytime soon is that too many people from too many states rely on the cheap labor. If they became citizens they'd have to be paid like citizens and that'd put a dent into the economy (and the politicians in those states would have some pissed off voters). I'm all for making certain illegals legal because they're honest people trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. However, most of them need to put the Mexican flag down, pay some taxes, learn some friggin english and become Americans, not Mexicans working in America. Just my two cents.

What exactly is the problem with letting these people fight it out amongst themselves? I'm failing to see why the US is upset (or should be) with what Israel is doing. They're waging war against a known terrorist organization and they're doing it in response to an offensive action. No one in the world thinks that Israel is wrong for starting this "war." The situation is even more justified because of the history that's behind it all. I think we should all sit back and hope that: 1) innocent citizen casualities are kept to a minimum and 2) that Israel wipes the floor with Hezbollah and returns some rationality to the region (not likely I know).

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jul 14, 2006 -> 11:52 AM) Agreed. I'm not seeing where center field is an issue for us. Speaking of the above, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the plan for 2006 originally that B-Mac was going to be our fifth starter? Or am I hallucinating? I don't know that this was ever an official plan. Getting Vazquez, on paper, should have put this rotation into an elite status. But he suffers from that one terrible inning every game that jacks up his numbers. He should have at least 12 wins by now if he wouldn't lose focus. The talent is there and is proven by his K numbers. It's just a matter of him growing mentally, which after so many years in the bigs, i'm not sure if it will ever happen. McCarthy to me is the most exciting young player we have. After last years run against the BoSox and Rangers, shutting them out, I knew this kid would be a great future starter. Hopefully with all these trade rumors flying around today he'll get a shot.